InfoQube IM - Community

Submitted by ethanrox on 2016/03/28 08:38

I am playing with some more advanced functionality - auto-assignment, row and column equations.

There is some strange behavior that I cannot reproduce, so I have to ask whether I do not understand it properly.

Running v72:

For row equations, I have defined two test fields (numerical). The one (A) being the input so to speak, and the other(B) using a row equation A+2 (proper syntax :) )

I got instant updates for a while and then it stopped working, forcing me to recalculate field B (shift+f9).

Now the only way to update the values of field B is through shift+f9. (which I reproduced in the portable v73b)

Reading through the documentation, this seems like "the normal way" of how row equations work, however why did I get the "instant update" behavior before?

Comments

It should work. have 10s of row equations and they all work

Can you show us exactly what's your row equations and the various fields properties?

The only spot where equations aren't automatically recalculated is for column equations. You have to check "automatic recalculation" (this is because in some case, automatic recalc is not always good) . For row equations, not such thing is needed, except IF there are some date dependant fields that should be recalculated at midnight every day.

Disclaimer: "Testing IQ with the most advanced/complicated IQBase in the world". I.e. slower than average.

Windows 8.1

CPU: Intel i5 2.6ghz

One thing you should be careful with-- but it doesn't seem to be the problem from what you wrote -- is that at some point Pierre changed the way fields are managed in equations. They need to be enclosed in [ ]

So the syntax would be

=[A]+2

Disclaimer: "Testing IQ with the most advanced/complicated IQBase in the world". I.e. slower than average.

Windows 8.1

CPU: Intel i5 2.6ghz

Hi !

I was able to reproduce the issue when adding a new row equation. It seems that the list of dependant fields is not updated. This will be fixed in v73c coming today to a store near you...

Pierre_Admin

IQ Designer

[quote=Pierre_Admin]

Hi !

I was able to reproduce the issue when adding a new row equation. It seems that the list of dependant fields is not updated. This will be fixed in v73c coming today to a store near you...

Pierre_Admin

IQ Designer

[/quote]

OK, so does that mean that new equations won't work properly?

Disclaimer: "Testing IQ with the most advanced/complicated IQBase in the world". I.e. slower than average.

Windows 8.1

CPU: Intel i5 2.6ghz

Hi Pierre,

still having the same issue running v73c portable.

Out of curiosity I just created there two brand new fields with the b=[a]+2, both numerical.

Shift+F9 is the only way to get b to update to a+2.

The row equation for field b should read

=[a]+2

Is this what you have ? Both a and b are numeric fields ? If yes, change it to something else. IQ needs to see a change to update the field info

HTH !

Pierre_Admin

IQ Designer

The two fields are brand new created within v73c, using the syntax from above.

Relaunched the database and nothing changed.

I am not sure what should I change?

[quote=Pierre_Admin]

The row equation for field b should read

=[a]+2

Is this what you have ? Both a and b are numeric fields ? If yes, change it to something else. IQ needs to see a change to update the field info

[/quote]

exactly.

Even if I didn't, doesn't the syntax work or doesn't work? If I get the values through shift+f9 it means that it works, right?

[quote=ethanrox]

Even if I didn't, doesn't the syntax work or doesn't work? If I get the values through shift+f9 it means that it works, right?

[/quote]

Exact. Last check, once the fields are created and you've seen that it doesn't work, try changing the equation once more. Does it work now ?

I was able to reproduce the issue with v73c so I'll work on a fix tomorrow. Sorry about this.

HTH !

Pierre_Admin

IQ Designer

No problem, as long as it is a known issue and fixable I am not worried :)

I changed the equation and did not work.

I remember before posting this thread to have come to a similar workaround in v72 and it suddenly started working.