Nov 17, 2022 02:45 AM
This one is driving me nuts. Am sure I am missing something simple.
3 x tables -
Every object has a crate - so that is easy. Some crates contain several objects
Crates are loaded onto the truck and I have a view which shows crates that are still to be loaded (If the Truck # field is empty it is not loaded)
Some crates, which contain an object, are quite small and get packed in a bigger crate. So on my crates table, I have another linked record field, which links to itself so I can show when a small crate is packed into my big crate.
So my “Loaded” view only shows the big crates that are on the truck. The smaller crates packed inside a bigger crate don’t show as being unloaded.
Am sure as soon as I post this I will figure it out - but I have spent a good couple of hours so need someone cleverer than me to help!
Read only link to a temp base to demonstrate this is here : https://airtable.com/shrK947lGGUOBNOvq
Any tips much appreciated!
Nov 17, 2022 03:32 AM
Hmm, off the top of my head, to retain the workflow you’ve got here, I think a possible solution would be to have an automation that runs every time the
Contents - Crate field gets updated, and it would run a script that would help you with linking backwards
You could then add a
Lookup field and a
Formula field to consolidate it all, resulting in something like this:
I think you’d be consuming two automations every time you updated the
Contents - Crate field though
Like you said, this seems like it’d be super simple to do, but also baffled me until I settled on just using a script to deal with it. I’m really hoping someone else has a better idea of how to tackle this workflow as well
Nov 17, 2022 04:07 AM
Thanks so much Adam
I keep thinking automation - but keen to avoid it if I can. Only because it is tricky to keep in sync (ie - if something changes after being unloaded)
I am thinking about a junction table maybe - so a table of “things that have been loaded on a truck” - but that feels clunky.
Nov 17, 2022 06:01 PM
True! We could handle this via the script as well I reckon
Yeah, your current flow is a lot more intuitive
Nov 18, 2022 01:55 PM
Thanks again for your tips.
I think I have got this working now - using Make (Integromat) and automation.
Keen to hear peoples thoughts though. This is how I went about it :
The automation then:
The Make scenario then -
I think this should work ok. Doesn’t use too many operations. Only disadvantage is it has to be triggered manually - but that is no big deal. (If it triggered on every change, it would use far too many operations. Same if it triggers at regular intervals).
Keen to hear what people think.