Relationship feature/bug/accident

  • Thread starter Thread starter Peter Danes
  • Start date Start date
Peter Danes said:
The
gist seems to be this: when a subform's recordset contains NO
records, AND the properties sheet has adding records disallowed, the
entire subform is not displayed. The subform's container on the main
form stays, but all the subform controls are invisible.
Click to expand...

This is not strictly true. All controls in the *Detail Section* of the
subform are invisible. Controls in the Form Header and Footer sections
are still visible. I'm sure John is aware of this, by the way.
It makes a
certain amount of cockeyed sense, I suppose. If there are no records
to show and you can't add any new ones, it's unlikely that you have
much reason to work with the subform. But it also blocks access to
any command buttons and such that you may want even if you have no
records and no adds allowed.
Click to expand...

But you can but such controls in the form header or footer, to work
around the phenomenon.
 
Hello Dirk,
This is not strictly true. All controls in the *Detail Section* of the
subform are invisible. Controls in the Form Header and Footer sections
are still visible.
Click to expand...

Okay, thanks, I didn't know that. My subforms don't have headers or footers
and I didn't think to try it. Good to know.

I'm sure John is aware of this, by the way.
Click to expand...

I would certainly have thought so, but he's the one who said that a blank
subform didn't sound right to him. Maybe I misunderstood his post - it
wouldn't be the first time I've failed to grasp something correctly.

But you can but such controls in the form header or footer, to work
around the phenomenon.
Click to expand...

Again, thank you for the info. I don't have any such controls at the moment,
but the project isn't finished yet. It's always nice to add something to my
toolbox.

Pete
 
Peter Danes said:
Hello Albert,

sorry about the delayed response, I just got back home.

Thank you for your thoughts on my problem. I'm certain that you're correct
about the need for a primary key, but if you look again at my original
post,
I believe that I already have a perfectly functional one.
Click to expand...

Yes, a number of people pointed that out to me.

So, thanks to them to point this out, and my apologies for not reading your
post correct.

So, you do have a PK, and I would NOT add a autonumber....
 
Back
Top