Unwanted connected tables

Can someone clarify the following:

I have two tables, created on the same page, but one is not a view of the other.
In tabel one I am doing some work and it has a button collumn. Upon hitting the button, some fields in the active row are changed. Through automation, when a certain field value changes, I take some data (three fields) and add them to a new row in the 2nd table. On some rows I do this once, on others I do this multiple times.
At the end of the session I might have 15 rows in table one (however many I have added), but hundreds in table 2 (depending on how often I have hit the button).
I would think that the data in table two is independent from the data in table one, but If I change the data in the original field (say a persons name), it gets changed all over the place. Or, If I delete the orinal row in table one, the data in table two is incomplete.
So, I guess I am not making rows with text/numerical data, but rows with links to the originating field.
Questions:

  1. is there a way to populate table two with the value of the data from table one instead of a link to that data (so it becomes a truely independent tabel)
  2. is there a way to prevent rows from being deleted (either on purpose or by accident)

Hi @joost_mineur,

Very shortly:

  1. Yes
  2. Yes (in read-only mode, through Locking)

Is there any way you could share your Doc (or a sample of it) so that it’s easier to have a better glimpse and try to put hands on? Especially for the first “yes”.

Thank you!

Hello Federico,

Thank you for your reply.
Sub 1: yes - I guess you need to convert the output of the function to some character mode (but I couldn’t find one).
Sub 2: I kind of figured that one, but then users can’t use the the table anymore, that’s not the idea. But maybe I am mistaken on that one.

Sharing: I will have to make a copy with fake data, I am using some real names in my app now. That will take me a couple of minutes. I will get back on this shortly. Just share it to everyine with a link ready?

Hi,

  1. If I correctly guessed, you put in Table 1 a reference of Table 2. In order to avoid any active connection, you need to only put data.
  2. I know… You’re right. This is a topic already addressed and noted by Codans:

Let me know if you can easily fake your data, otherwise I can set up something easy from scratch.

You can also embed in the post by clicking Share (orange button up right), define sharing permissions and then “embed”.

Startlijst veld is where ‘the action’ is going on. Only blue and red lines are active (conditionally colored).
Upon hitting the button the color is taken out, the status is changed and the value in one of the last two columns is incremented by one. The table below gets populated as you go and data should stay there regardless of what happens in tabel one, only rows should be added.

@Federico_Stefanato Pleasd notice my posting. Is the way to share just this dummy data and nothing more than that?

Yes, that’s correct!

Ok,
let’s focus on one thing at a time: I added a Log Data Table and just to act as a simple immutable log triggered by Log Data button.
basically, you just copy the data - i.e. all the relevant attributes, not the references - in the Log Data.

I added a Original Reference Column, but this is only if you need it and remember that this part is - obviously - mutable.

(you should see it in your shared document as well).

Let me know if this is close to what you intended.

If I correctly understood, you already implemented the logic of status advancing, is it right?

Hello Federico,
Yes, this is what I was looking for. Your formula is slightly different from mine - I am struggling a little bit with the way I have to enter these sequences (and which ones), but I will get there. I implemented some status advancing by deleting a value in one of the columns (“status”), which is intentional.
I will start playing with this a bit more - thanks for your help. I am calling it a day for now.
Greetings,
Joost

Happy it was useful.
Let me know if you need further help.

@joost_mineur, I also added a new Section (Status Transition) to play around with status.
Don’t know if it just adds entropy… :grimacing:

Cheers

@Federico_Stefanato Thanks a lot - I understand now how to build the result fields. I had missed the part (“step 1 reference”) and obviously you have to point to the right fields. My formula was making a linked field, yours does what I want it to do.

I am going to look at the other page later, but thanks for that too!

1 Like