I am creating an InfoPath form and want to retrieve the data from the SQL database. I'm not looking for end users to fill in blank text fields, but rather am just wanting to populate the fields with the data from the SQL Database.
I have searched on some blogs and InfoPath/Microsoft sites to see how this can be accomplished, but many of the things I keep bumping into show how to create fields that the end user can populate instead of fields that are pre-populated.
I have already connected the database that I want to use to InfoPath and 'myfields' are already populated with the table that I am using, so half the battle has been won! :)
How can I accomplish this?
There are a few options available to you...
Firstly, you can look at using rules on the form load or default vlues in your InfoPath forms' fields to populate the fields with data from your SQL (secondary) data source... Take a look at this link here: http://social.technet.microsoft.com/Forums/en/sharepoint2010customization/thread/cb15a237-28cc-4d6b-8225-83181a7497ff
Secondly, you could use managed code on the form load to query the SQL database and then set your returned values to the values held in your fields in your InfoPath form. Take a look here for using managed code to do this: http://vspug.com/ssa/2006/01/03/populating-infopath-fields-with-sql-data-using-managed-code/
I hope this helps...
Related
From my VB.net application I manage to create a database.
I can also create tables, with all kinds of datatypes in them. (with much thanks to stackoverflow's contributors!)
so far so good...
but how do I set the datatype MEMO to accept rich text?
basically how do I code to get : (MS Access snippet)
I'm sure it is a simple addition to the regular CREATE TABLE business - but I don't know what!
any hints would be most appreciated!
You don't have to do anything to make the Memo data type accept RTF data. RTF is text and a Memo column stores text. Job done. Many of those fields you're setting on the column are about how Access DISPLAYS the data within Access itself, not how it stores it. If you're using the MDB or ACCDB file simply as storage and the data only gets displayed in your application then that Text Format is irrelevant.
I'm creating an ASP.NET web application which allows users to digitize paper forms. The user will import their own forms which will be converted into HTML with placeholders inserted to accept values from an input form.
Using the fields on this imported paper form, the website will create an input form based on what information is required. "Templates" can also be created for a specific form which allows a user to auto-fill any data that doesn't normally change with each form fill. A user can also save a form they haven't finished for completing/reviewing later.
My question is: how do I store this data? I can't really use a traditional database table because Form X could look nothing like Form Y and require completely different data. I have a SQL database to store the data in (I need this for other aspects of the site too), but I can't simply store all form data in one table or even have separate tables for each form as this will be impractical on a larger scale.
My initial thoughts were using JSON but I have absolutely no idea where to start with this. Can I put JSON data into a regular SQL database column? Can this be used to generate code to build a web form to allow a user to easily fill out their forms using any device (as per my design requirements)?
I think your problem would be very well served using a document DB like mongoDB or Arangodb. Reality nowadays is that applications can , and sometimes should, use more than one DB.
Having said that, if I had to use a relational DB, I would convert your forms into 3 tables. The first top level form would just store something like:
form name ,
form id ,
etc...
The second table would capture the form fields and would look be something like:
FormID
field Id
field name
fiel type (int, varchar, etc...)
sort no.
etc ...
The third table would capture the information entered by the user:
user id
form id
field id
value
creation date time
last modification date time
etc...
Note that by storing the fields in rows instead of columns, it does not matter that you have different types of forms.
I should mention that the above table definitions are not meant to be complete by any means, they are there to give you an idea on how to get started.
Finally, note that many relational DB allow you to store JSON nowadays directly in the DB as you suggested, but that may not be a very good option depending on which DB you are using. Here is an example of storing JSON in mysql just for your reference.
I am working on a very complex legacy ADP project in Microsoft Access that connects to a 2008 SQL Server back end. A common usage scenario is a form in datasheet view that contains an editable recordset.
The approach used through most of the database is to load the form, then build the SQL dynamically in VBA using form parameters, and apply the SQL as the RecordSource for the form. Many of the queries are quite complex, so this makes for really ugly code and a maintenance nightmare.
For the read-only recordsets, I have converted the dynamic sql to parameterized stored proceedures, which works great. Nice and clean, and easy to maintain going forward.
But for the editable recordsets, I am trying to determine the best approach:
1. Dynamic SQL - As mentioned above, I would really like to avoid this approach.
2. SQL View - The challenge here is that some of the tables are very large, so if I try to load the view and then filter it on the form, it has to pull the entire recordset from the SQL server, even though I only need a small number of rows. (Negative performance and IO impact.)
3. Use context_info - This sounds intriguing, but does not sound like a recommended approach based on discussion here: Create parameterized VIEW in SQL Server 2008 If I was developing against SQL Server 2016 I might look more into SESSION_CONTEXT.
4. Parameter Table with View - This is an idea that I am leaning towards. I would create a Parameters table in SQL, and set the parameter value (as a key/value pair) with the session ID. The view would then filter based on the current value in the parameter table. This would allow me to use a view as my RecordSource to support the edits, but the filtering would take place on the SQL Server side.
Is the parameter table indeed the best approach to take with this project, or is there another way that I could access a parameterized read-write recordset that is filtered on the server side?
I assume you talking about a non adp project now.
Even if you don’t use a view, and say bind a form directly to a linked table of 1 million rows, then access will ONLY pull down the records you requests. You simply just use the forms “where” clause of the open Form command.
So you don’t even have to use dynamic sql here.
However, you don’t want to launch a form bound to large table UNLESS you set the where clause.
You can certainly open a form without a reordsource, have the user enter some parameter values into a text box, and then go:
Dim strSQL as string
strSQL = "select * from tblCustomers where InvoiceNum = " & me.MyInvoiceTextBox
Me.RecordSoruce = strSQL
However, in most cases you better to create some type of search form. Let the user enter some values, display the results like this:
So in above, the person type in "smi". You display the results
(and in above I did use the above approach of stuffing the sql directly into the forms reocrdsource
Now on the edit buttons along the side to launch + edit one record,
I simply go:
Docmd.OpenForm "frmCustomer",,,id = & me!id
Once again, EVEN if the form is bound directly to the linked SQL server table, only the ONE record will be pulled from SQL server. So no messing with sql, no messing with parameters etc. is required.
So a regular non ADP access application with linked tables DOES NOT pull the whole table.
You can also after opening a form set the forms filter – and again access will ONLY pull the reocrds in question from the linked sql table. It is a “common” myth that access pulls all records – it does not if you provide a filter, and I recommend you open a form to one record, let the user work then close the form and return back to some search screen in which you ready to do battle with the next customer etc.
so provide a search form - don't recommend having the form to edit data be all cluttered up with the ability to search records. Let the user edit, and then close the form - this also promotes the record being saved after the user done working.
edit:
For a form that has any kind of complex joins etc., then create a view, and bind the form to that view. You use the forms "where" clause, then once again access will only pull down the one record. So for complex joins etc., yes access can often mess that query up and it runs slow. So if the form is bound to one table (that is MOST cases), then bind the form directly to the linked table. If the sql is complex, then bind the form to the linked view, and as noted in either case ALWAYS provide a "where clause" to the openform command - it will in these cases ONLY pull the one record into the form. And once again, no messy parameters, no messy sql is required on the access side - you will save MASSIVE amounts of coding if you adopt this approach, and you also get stellar performance since you limiting the reocrds pulled into that form from sql server.
I have a table in Access linked to a SharePoint list. The table is comprised of about 15 fields whose contents are originally pulled from another data source (in Excel format). There are an additional 10 or so fields after the original 15 that make up a questionnaire (added via SharePoint) that contain answers to questions about the first 15 fields.
The data in the first 15 fields needs to be updated periodically when new data from my external source is available to download. A lot of the information will remain the same, however some of the fields within each of the rows will change and need to be updated. It is also important that the 10 fields that contain the questionnaire are not modified at all during this process.
Is there a way for me to easily update the cells that have changed using an Update query or something similar? The data does have a unique identifier column (ID NUMBER) that is present on the current SharePoint list and the external data source.
I was thinking from a logical standpoint to put the new external data into a table, find the ID Number in the SP list and new external data, compare the values in the rest of the row on the SP list to the row of the external data, and if a value is different update the cell with the value from the external data. Not sure how to accomplish this using Access queries though.
I really appreciate any help at all! If you need more information, please let me know. If you think there's a more logical way to do this, please let me know your feedback!!
Here's how to get started:
http://workerthread.wordpress.com/2009/02/03/using-access-2007-to-update-sharepoint-lists/
After you get the connection set up, it's just a matter of writing the queries correctly. If you need to run multiple queries periodically, you can setup a form with buttons, and attach some VBA code to the buttons that runs the queries.
MS Access - execute a saved query by name in VBA
I'm trying to create a form that allows my audit team to help identify transactions that need further investigation.
Is the following is possible? If so what would be the best method for accomplishing this? I would like to have a check box in a form for each record that is returned from a query. That check box would then be used to identify records that would be appended to another table.
I've done this in the past for forms linked to temporary tables; however, since this form is linked to a query I think I'm having an issue.
You could add the checkbox to the form and use some VBA code to insert all those rows from the query into another table that have the checkbox checked (Forms!MyForm!myCb = True)