This is probably something very simple but I’ve tried multiple approaches and things aren’t working as I’d expect. I have 2 tables, Table 1 with some reference numbers on and Table 2 that is “looking up” those references and will eventually be populated with all the reference numbers as our project progresses. To keep track of progress I wanted to add a column to Table 1 that gives a simple True or False results if it finds the reference number from Table 1 in Table 2. I found it easy enough to do when checking a single column by using this formula:
However we have 8 grades an therefore 8 columns to check against that are in Table 2. My question is how do I put that in a neat formula? I feel like I’m missing something blindingly obvious, which is probable lol.
For sure it should be possible, would you mind to post a copy, without sensitive data, just to make it more easy to work towards solving your question?
The far right column on the first table is the one with the formula and currently it is only looking at Grade 1 column (in second table) but I want it to check against all grades 1-8. Hope that makes sense!
@Ander I looked at the new sample and see that it works, but I don’t understand how it works. I would have expected in the new formula to see “thisRow.[E&B Reference #]”, and not only “thisRow”. What am I missing here?
Oops - figured it partly out. E&B Reference # is the display column, and ThisRow returns the value of that field in thisRow. So I understand why this works.
But I don’t understand why thisRow.[E&B Reference #] doesn’t work - I would expect it to return the same value as thisRow by itself?
thisRow followed by a dot and then a column name was coded to refer to a column value on a row object.
“dot notation” is an established way of accessing object properties. In our case, the object is the row, and the property is the column value on that row.
Thank you for you clear answer - I do understand. in one the the formula fitness sessions was even explained that issues often relate to the object type - but I forgot to link that remark to this example