We’re having to maintain data records in two tables, rather than one, because forms only create new records, not updates.
Here’s the scenario:
New Assets are created in the Assets table:
ASSETS
Asset Name | Asset Location | Module Name |
Apple | apple.com | Truck |
Banana | banana.com | Truck; Plane |
Grape | grape.com | Boat |
The Module Name column is Linked to the Modules table:
MODULES
Module Name | Module Location | Module Type |
Truck | apple.com | Course |
Boat | banana.com | Course |
Plane | grape.com | Video |
There’s no problem creating the Assets records, either through a form, or directly in the tables, by those of us with those permissions.
(Note that the Banana asset is associated with two Modules: Truck and Plane.)
When we want to update an Asset record, we can only do so by working directly in the table.
Some team members can only update records through a form. When they do so, a new record is created, but we do not want to add more records to the Assets table since we expect each Asset record to be unique. We would prefer not to see two Apple records, for example. So, we use a form pointed at the Assets Update table, and it might look like this:
ASSETS UPDATE
Asset Name | Module Name |
Apple | Plane |
Apple | Boat |
Banana | Boat |
Grape | Plane |
Grape | Truck |
So, in order to see all the Modules that an Asset is associated with, we have to look at two tables.
What are some ways to merge Module Name updates made in the Assets Update table back to the Assets Module names in the Asset table, so it would look like this:
ASSETS
Asset Name | Asset Location | Module Name |
Apple | apple.com | Truck; Plane: Boat |
Banana | banana.com | Truck; Plane; Boat |
Grape | grape.com | Boat: Plane; Truck |
Maybe there’s an automation we could execute.
Or maybe there’s a better way to handle this from the beginning.
Thanks for any ideas!