Submit Your Suggestions for Vista

Why can't we see the Company Field when adding a Grid Link on a standard form?

Imagine you create a custom table called "PR Mobile Devices" in which you want to track the devices you've handed out to your employees. In this table you have the fields (with appropriate data types):

• PRCo
• Employee
• GUID (string)
• UserAgent (string)

Now, you'd like to put this data in a 'Mobile Devices' tab in PR Employees.

• Creating the tab itself goes well.
• Selecting "udPRMobileDevices" as the "Grid Form" goes well.
• Setting up Grid Links:
  • For field "Employee" works fine, as it is visible in both the child and parent views.
  • For field "PRCo", it fails! PRCo is not available in the 'ParentFieldSeq' lookup.

This has happened to me many times within Viewpoint. I create a custom table with APPROPRIATELY named company fields (instead of using the "form is company based" checkbox), then have issues when I go to hook it up to the parent form via Grid Links.

Viewpoint, letting us do one of the following would greatly help:

• Put a 0 in 'ParentFieldSeq' to designate the parent form's "company" field,
• Select from ALL AVAILABLE FIELDS from the parent view
  • If I examine the "PREH" view (which is what is linked to the PR Employees form), I can see that there is actually a PRCo field! It may not be visible in the form, but it definitely exists in the view.

Why I prefer to NOT use "Form is Company Based"

When you force us to use  the checkbox "form is company based" when making a custom table, it greatly increases the chance of confusion down the road as there might be multiple fields that refer to companies within a single table. Why should we continually have to track and remember if the Co field refers to PR, or IN, or JC, or some other area?

Writing SQL code like "a.PRCo = b.PRCo" compared to "a.Co = b.PRCo" has better semantics, looks better, is easier to debug...

Shucks, I'm guessing that's why you guys named your fields PRCo, JCCo, INCo,...etc, even within their own master tables instead of just using a generic "Co" field. :-)

Please consider extending the same courtesy to us.

Let us use area-specific company fields in our custom tables, and link them properly! 😁

Thanks.

Linked ideas: 

https://vistaerp.ideas.aha.io/ideas/PF-I-319