Detail View, and how it displays detail rows

Hi All,

I am working on a doc, and I have differences in how the detail view of two sets of linked tables are displayed.

This is the layout I want:

This is the layout on the second set of tables:

The difference between the two data sets is that the top set makes use of a Lookup, which means that the table link needs to be maintained manually. the bottom set is a filter, so that the link is established automatically.

Q1, Is the difference the reason?
Q2. Is there a way to get the lower level info displayed in table format? I have tried several different permutations in the formula, and have not been able to get it working.

Here is a link to the doc.
SAP and Accounting Examples

Thank you very much
Piet

Hi @Piet_Strydom :blush: !

I’m not sure but I think only Lookup type of field can be displayed as table in a detail view :thinking: .

I was not able to open the linked you shared (for some reason :woman_shrugging: ) so I don’t know how you could create a lookup field for those specific values and display them as a table in your detail view :blush: .

To be clear though, you should be able to set the column type to Lookup, while also using a formula to filter

That was my idea as well, but I am not getting it to work, i have tried two ways:
One where I create a lookup, and then filter with a formula in the filter at the table level.
The second where I create the lookup, and then under lookup options build a filter.

My assumption at the moment is that lookup is an advanced version of the select list, i.e an assist to data entry.

Regards
P

Hi Pch,

I think so too, i have subsequently found that when you use lookup, you get an option in the detail table whether to display the details as a table or not. That option is not available when the link is a filter

What I have done is to group the lower table, which works okish.

Thanks
Piet

Could you share a minimal example doc showing the issue?

HI Nick,

Thanks for looking - there is a link in the first email, as well as screen shots with the relevant pages on the left.

R
P

Hmm, doesn’t seem to be working (looks like a link and quacks like a link, but doesn’t appear to actually be a link under the hood)

1 Like

Thanks Nick.

Let’s see whether this quacks:

Regards
Piet

Yep that link works!

What should be displayed in the table for GL Accounts?

Right now it’s just a set of numbers (the “Cost Element 1” from each linked GL Account). One option, if you prefer, is to format them as a BulletedList() if that’s easier to read.

If you’d instead like to see the other info related to each GL Account (besides just the Cost Element 1's), you can show column Link to GL Accounts as a table.

Orrrrr… are you saying that Cost Element 1's (like 50300000 for example) correspond to yet another table somewhere, with additional info attached to each of those? If that’s the case, column Cost Element 1 in table ccsLink to GL Account needs to be type Lookup instead of type Text.

Do I have it right with any of those? :slight_smile:

I looked at your doc Piet.

You are using text columns instead of lookup columns and you have a very confusing and inefficient table structure.

Think about it this way. Each table is a list of rows with minimum needed information. This way, you should have more tables.

In your doc, there should be at least these (and probably other) separate tables:

  1. Clients
  2. Quantity Structure Types
  3. Cost Components
  4. Cost Component Types
  5. Comments
  6. Status Types
  7. GL Accounts
  8. Cost Elements
  9. Account Creators (or just Users)
  10. P&L Statement Accounts
  11. Account Groups

When you detangle all the info into these separate tables, you connect them by adding Lookup columns.
Eg. Cost Components table should have a column that is a Lookup on Clients table.

When you do this with all the tables, you will be able to create Row Layouts where you can for example for a given Client in Clients table, open the row and see a table with all Cost Components of that client.

1 Like

Hi Nick,

(Oops, seems like I forgot to hit the final button.)

Thanks for the investigation.

Let me give little bit of background to the data: This data is used to set up the configuration of SAP. The cost component is a summary of costs. The cost component table has several characteristics, e.g. Cost Component Number, CC description, whether the costs are 100% fixed, or whether there is a variable component too.
The second table stores the GL accounts that make up a cost component. This table has the cost component (the key), the GL account number and the G account description. For example the cost component Labour OH, will consist of GL account Wages, Salaries, Perqs, Monthly holiday provision etc.

So the purpose of this Coda is to be able to go to a client, download those two table, and have a join that clearly shows the relationships.

I have settled for the Group view as shown below, but I think that using a table in the detail view looks better:

HI Tomislav,

Thanks for taking the time to respond.

as I mentioned above, these two tables are input parameters to the doc, the purpose of the doc is to join them.

Lookup is an entry aid, but when the data already has been captured, it does not provide any benefit. (Or at least, I have not found a way yet to use it for that purpose.)

On the normalisation of data tables: Coda is not a relational database. It is not going to maintain your referencial integrity for you. It helped saving disk space, by eliminating redundant data from your database. That is no longer as big a concern, and a more important consideration in table design is ease of understanding and use.

The most pertinent example I have yet come across is SAP’s upgrade/rewrite of it’s ERP system from ECC-disk based R3 to the S4 RAM based. They went from storing financial entries in around 15 different tables, to a single Table.

Regards
Piet