Finding the current painted occurrence

Hi

Version 10.4.02.005 working in client.
We don't think this is possible but I am asking here in the hope that someone can point out the obvious thing we have missed.

The scenario is a multi-occurrence entity painted on the form with lots of records retrieved.  We would like to know which of the painted occurrences the current occurrence is being displayed within. So, basically, we would like to know whether the current occurrence of, say, 20, is being displayed in the 5th painted occurrence or the 6th or 7th etc.

Thanks in advance

David

Hi David,

I feel I understand what you are asking for but lets double check it:

First: obviously you know $curocc(ENTITY) giving back the current occurrence for your multi-occurrence entity.
Your question related to current painted occurrence could be generated from this doubt: why current occurrence is not always visible when my procScript code is moving through retrieved occurrences? Please let me know if I am right.

Have you tried already show instruction?

Regards,
Gianni

Hi Iain

After saying we didnt want to do something hacky, we were trying to do something a bit hacky.  I left a lot of guff out of my original post to try and not confuse the issue.

Basically our software is used by externals so we are attempting to keep keep an existing UI.  The screen in question currently has approx 20 painted occurrences of a dummy entity which could be showing up to a few thousand records depending on the scenario.  As it stands, we have a popup type form which is opened from a button on the occurrence and shows a few extra details for the current record.  The popup opens downleft (I think) from the button so it is obviously "attached" to the specific button and therefore occurrence and it closes when focus is lost.
Roll forward to now we have a requirement where some of that data on the popup can be changed and it needs to be validated. All well and good except that the validation routine pops up a form that asks a few questions.  This validation form opens behind the popup form which is obviously not acceptable UI.
We have changed the form to a standard form but are now trying to replicate it opening in the same place in relation to the button clicked.  We can newinstance the form with DIMENSION defined but we need to work out YPOS depending on the painted occurrence number of the button clicked.

Its not the end of the world, we will just have to make it a "normal" form but it seems such a shame considering how close we can get.

Cheers

David

Tribal Group

Hi Iain

After saying we didnt want to do something hacky, we were trying to do something a bit hacky.  I left a lot of guff out of my original post to try and not confuse the issue.

Basically our software is used by externals so we are attempting to keep keep an existing UI.  The screen in question currently has approx 20 painted occurrences of a dummy entity which could be showing up to a few thousand records depending on the scenario.  As it stands, we have a popup type form which is opened from a button on the occurrence and shows a few extra details for the current record.  The popup opens downleft (I think) from the button so it is obviously "attached" to the specific button and therefore occurrence and it closes when focus is lost.
Roll forward to now we have a requirement where some of that data on the popup can be changed and it needs to be validated. All well and good except that the validation routine pops up a form that asks a few questions.  This validation form opens behind the popup form which is obviously not acceptable UI.
We have changed the form to a standard form but are now trying to replicate it opening in the same place in relation to the button clicked.  We can newinstance the form with DIMENSION defined but we need to work out YPOS depending on the painted occurrence number of the button clicked.

Its not the end of the world, we will just have to make it a "normal" form but it seems such a shame considering how close we can get.

Cheers

David

Tribal Group

Hi Daniel, Iain, Gianni
Thanks for your responses,
I am hoping we have missed something obvious!

I will get both of those suggestions attempted tomorrow and let you know.  We have to be careful because we are plugging in to an existing validation process so we have to be careful how we change that.  It may well be that technically it works in this scenario but doesn't in existing implementations so we shall see how it goes.  Thanks for the suggestions.

Cheers

David

Tribal Group