Multi-record using tables that have multiple options

10 posts by 2 authors in: Forums > CMS Builder
Last Post: May 9, 2011   (RSS)

By (Deleted User) - April 21, 2011

I have a multi-record set up that I want to include a table 'list' on. These tables could have anywhere from 2-10 columns and 2-200 rows.

I know how to set those up as multiple records, but I was told I could set these up right within the original multi-record. Could someone advise as to how to do this?

Re: [kimamel] Multi-record using tables that have multiple options

By robin - April 25, 2011

Hey,

You'll need to setup your table list in a multi-record section first. If you want to include them in the original multi-record in CMS Builder you can use the "Related records" field type. That is an advanced feature requiring a little knowledge of sql.
If you want to display them on your web front end, then you can pull the table list with a load records statement. This option will be much easier.

Hope that helps,
Robin
Robin
Programmer
interactivetools.com

Re: [robin] Multi-record using tables that have multiple options

By (Deleted User) - April 25, 2011

Yes, this is what I am looking to do. But I don't have the knowledge of sql. I was told this was the best option and that someone could help me through this feature here in the form. Thanks.

Re: [robin] Multi-record using tables that have multiple options

By (Deleted User) - April 26, 2011

Yes, this is directly related and I am happy to close one of these threads. THanks.

Re: [robin] Multi-record using tables that have multiple options

By (Deleted User) - May 6, 2011

Okay, well I started fresh here and created a multi-record table called all_products

Then for each product, I have a multi-record table that has a different name (each one has a different name for the product, so there is one called bulb_specs for instance. Each specifications table has varying fields.

For all_products, the fields are:
title, content, features, specifications_copy, specifications_notes, support_info, videos, documents, support_links, product_main_description, image

for bulb_specs, the field names are
item, description, product_length
==========

I am honestly now wondering if there is an easier way to do this, such as including the tables of product specifications right within all_products. That way, if the user wants to create a new product, they would be able to create specifications within.

But I don't want to just create an HTML table here, because I like the sortorder functionaltiy, as it makes editing the specifications listing easier.

Any and all help is appreciated.

Re: [kimamel] Multi-record using tables that have multiple options

By robin - May 9, 2011

Hey Kim,

Adding the specifications within the products table its a good and easy option. You could do it in a wysiwyg field and not have to worry about table relationships or anything like that.

Robin
Robin
Programmer
interactivetools.com

Re: [robin] Multi-record using tables that have multiple options

By (Deleted User) - May 9, 2011

Yes, but there's no drag and drop option this way, correct?

It seems to me that someone who doesn't know HTML very well might have a difficult time placing the rows where they want if we use a table format within the wysiwyg. Is that what you meant? Or is there a better way to do this?

Re: [kimamel] Multi-record using tables that have multiple options

By robin - May 9, 2011

Hey,

A table in the editor would lose drag and drop yes.

But it is pretty easy to add a table in the wysiwyg editor. You don't need to know HTML. It has a similar table editor to MS Word.

Hope that helps,
Robin
Robin
Programmer
interactivetools.com

Re: [robin] Multi-record using tables that have multiple options

By (Deleted User) - May 9, 2011

I just tested it out and putting in a table I couldn't even add rows or columns to what I had originally selected, so if this is the way it works, it definitely wouldn't work for our needs.

But honestly, I think I need the ability to easily add rows or columns in between existing columns or rows without knowing HTML, which is why this was originally a multi-record entry. So if we can't achieve this in the main product, then it would be better, I think, to combine two multi-records, which I'm still unclear on...