How to limit the tables displayed in table selector of a 'Document ID' field?
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
‎01-04-2016 07:48 PM
Hi Folks,
We are trying to implement some functionality in which we require a Document iD field and we need to be able to do the things below:
Preference 1: Be able to limit/default the value of the 'Table name' field (Document ID field type)based on another field on the same table (named 'Type')
Preference 2: Be able to limit a predefined set of tables which appear in the 'Table name' field of the Document ID type field instead of showing all the tables
Any ideas/solution are appreciated! Thank you!!
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
‎01-04-2016 11:10 PM
Hi,
Have you tried using the default value and the reference qualifier available on the dictionary of the field?
Thanks,
Berny
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
‎01-05-2016 02:06 AM
Hi Berny, its a Document ID type of field (different than a reference field). It does not have a reference qualifier (or I am not able to find it )
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
‎02-22-2016 09:03 AM
Hi,
First, create a Script Include whose process() method returns an array of table names from which to select.
Second, add the attribute 'tableChoicesScript=testMIRelationship' to the definition of the field which the document id field is dependent to (use Advanced View)
Result:
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
‎10-24-2018 01:37 AM
This needs marked as the correct answer, to give this person some credit for a spot-on answer, since this solution could be used to dynamically decide the tables available for use by the document-id field, no matter what the use case. Nice job, this was definitely a nuanced solution. Thank you for sharing.