How do I tell an individual field to not break?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Rotata
  • Start date Start date
R

Rotata

Background: We were using Excel to create some very complex, reusable
reports. Some of the text entries were so long, we had to use two or more
cells. Last year, I put the whole mess into an Access database (because a
memo field can hold a ton of text) and messed around with it until I got the
reports to work like I wanted them to. These reports are not standard. I made
them with a number of sorts and groups and tailored each report to break in
just the right places.

Today, I was given a new set of data to add to the reports. It became one of
those "oh s***" moments when I realized I was going to have to restructure
the reports so that they could sum percentages.

So, I restructured the reports, added the fields and now the reports look
horrible. Memo fields break across pages and some of them mush up together.

I would like for each field to keep itself together. In other words, I don't
want part of the field at the bottom of one page and a portion of it at the
top of the next. It is so bad, I'm thinking of begging the boss to let me use
Word.

Any advice appreciated.

Thanks,
 
Rotata

In the report properties under grouping there is a "keep together" Option,
I am not exactly sure how it works wether it needs to be set on report header
or detail section but see if it does what you want..

Barry
 
Rotata said:
Background: We were using Excel to create some very complex, reusable
reports. Some of the text entries were so long, we had to use two or more
cells. Last year, I put the whole mess into an Access database (because a
memo field can hold a ton of text) and messed around with it until I got the
reports to work like I wanted them to. These reports are not standard. I made
them with a number of sorts and groups and tailored each report to break in
just the right places.

Today, I was given a new set of data to add to the reports. It became one of
those "oh s***" moments when I realized I was going to have to restructure
the reports so that they could sum percentages.

So, I restructured the reports, added the fields and now the reports look
horrible. Memo fields break across pages and some of them mush up together.

I would like for each field to keep itself together. In other words, I don't
want part of the field at the bottom of one page and a portion of it at the
top of the next. It is so bad, I'm thinking of begging the boss to let me use
Word.
Click to expand...


That's not generally possible. There is a group
KeepTogether property that you can set in Sorting and
Grouping (View menu). However, trying to keep several/many
detail records and their group header and footer on a page
is not going to keep a single (large?) text box on a page
when the text box starts near the bottom of the page and the
group requires more than one page.

There is also a KeepTogether property for all sections
(except Page header/footer). This is a finer level of
control than the group KeepTogether, but if you have a
section that needs more than one page, the section will
necessarily be split at the page boundary and if your text
box ends up at the page break, then it will be split.

OTOH, if you can arrange the report's design so that each
potentially large text box is in its own section, then the
section's KeepTogether property will apply to the section's
single text box. To vreate additional section's for this
purpose, create as many groups (up to 10) as needed by
grouping on the detail record's primary key field (or
whatever field you are sorting the records). Then you can
spread your detail section's controls across all the extra
group header and footer sections and use each section's
KeepTogether property to keep the section's single text box
on a page.
 
Marshall,

Thanks for repying. I was hoping that wouldn't be the answer.

It is exactly what I did the first time around - a ton of sections with just
the right number of fields in each section. Each report filtered for just the
right criteria so that there were no more than 2 memo fields in any one
section.

I guess I'll just have to use long addition to get the proper results.

Thanks,

Jan
 
Rotata said:
Thanks for repying. I was hoping that wouldn't be the answer.

It is exactly what I did the first time around - a ton of sections with just
the right number of fields in each section. Each report filtered for just the
right criteria so that there were no more than 2 memo fields in any one
section.

I guess I'll just have to use long addition to get the proper results.
Click to expand...


Maybe there's another way to calculate the sums? If you'll
explain what you need to calculate, I'll take a look at it
to see if I get any ideas.

Just off the top of my head, it seems that you can bind all
the numbers in detail section text boxes, hiding the ones
that you're displaying in the extra group headers and
footers. Then I think you can do the calculation using
ordinary Sum expressions or maybe running sums??
 
Long addition is working. =[Field1]+[Field2]+[Field3]
depending on the report, that can be up to thirteen fields.
If I'd made "Job Duties" a separate table, it would have been more
efficient, but I had some restrictions on how I could do things. (long story)

My last day is going to be next week and I don't want to leave the office in
a lurch.
I had to touch my toes bending backwards to do what management wanted done -
building various databases, converting ancient FileMaker databases to Access,
importing scraps of information, keeping things working through changes to
Office, making the data entry simple and the reports complex.
Ever try to make an Access database look and act like Filemaker? It can be
done. Sort of.

Now, I'm going to be working with a monumental FileMaker 8 database and a
whole new set of rules. I'm looking forward to the challenge, but I'm going
to miss my Access.
 
Rotata said:
Long addition is working. =[Field1]+[Field2]+[Field3]
depending on the report, that can be up to thirteen fields.
If I'd made "Job Duties" a separate table, it would have been more
efficient, but I had some restrictions on how I could do things. (long story)

My last day is going to be next week and I don't want to leave the office in
a lurch.
I had to touch my toes bending backwards to do what management wanted done -
building various databases, converting ancient FileMaker databases to Access,
importing scraps of information, keeping things working through changes to
Office, making the data entry simple and the reports complex.
Ever try to make an Access database look and act like Filemaker? It can be
done. Sort of.

Now, I'm going to be working with a monumental FileMaker 8 database and a
whole new set of rules. I'm looking forward to the challenge, but I'm going
to miss my Access.
Click to expand...


Well, given a weak table design, if it works, it's good
enough.

Good luck with your next project.
 
Back
Top