Hey @VCC_Online!
This is interesting!
I’m thinking in the abstract, but I would create two tables.
If you’re looking at base I shared in that original post, you will see the Equipment table and the Equipment Checkouts table that I had initially created.
To handle the equipment bundles, I would create a new table.
Each record will be for a single bundle, and you’ll want to link the individual pieces of equipment to their related bundle.
You can use a similar setup to prevent people from checking out bundles and equipment that isn’t available.
Specifically, if a piece of equipment is in a bundle, but that bundle is checked out, then the equipment in that bundle will be unavailable for you to individually checkout.
The OP in the previous thread you referenced wanted to use a web form to handle people checking equipment in or out.
If you were going to use the web form approach, you would add a new linked record field that points to the bundles’ table.
Not sure if that makes sense; I just woke up.
Let me know if I sound crazy or if you want to dig more into the details.
Hey @VCC_Online!
This is interesting!
I’m thinking in the abstract, but I would create two tables.
If you’re looking at base I shared in that original post, you will see the Equipment table and the Equipment Checkouts table that I had initially created.
To handle the equipment bundles, I would create a new table.
Each record will be for a single bundle, and you’ll want to link the individual pieces of equipment to their related bundle.
You can use a similar setup to prevent people from checking out bundles and equipment that isn’t available.
Specifically, if a piece of equipment is in a bundle, but that bundle is checked out, then the equipment in that bundle will be unavailable for you to individually checkout.
The OP in the previous thread you referenced wanted to use a web form to handle people checking equipment in or out.
If you were going to use the web form approach, you would add a new linked record field that points to the bundles’ table.
Not sure if that makes sense; I just woke up.
Let me know if I sound crazy or if you want to dig more into the details.
Appreciate you jumping on today!
That’s what I was thinking too. I like the reality of having an Equipments table and then a Bundles table. We have a web form in the “Equipments Checkout” table - I’d love for someone to either be able to check out individual equipment or a bundle. And yes to what this: “Specifically, if a piece of equipment is in a bundle, but that bundle is checked out, then the equipment in that bundle will be unavailable for you to individually checkout.”
I’m not as familiar with Airtable - just getting started in the last 3-6 months. Would love any help you could give! Thank you!
Hey @VCC_Online!
This is interesting!
I’m thinking in the abstract, but I would create two tables.
If you’re looking at base I shared in that original post, you will see the Equipment table and the Equipment Checkouts table that I had initially created.
To handle the equipment bundles, I would create a new table.
Each record will be for a single bundle, and you’ll want to link the individual pieces of equipment to their related bundle.
You can use a similar setup to prevent people from checking out bundles and equipment that isn’t available.
Specifically, if a piece of equipment is in a bundle, but that bundle is checked out, then the equipment in that bundle will be unavailable for you to individually checkout.
The OP in the previous thread you referenced wanted to use a web form to handle people checking equipment in or out.
If you were going to use the web form approach, you would add a new linked record field that points to the bundles’ table.
Not sure if that makes sense; I just woke up.
Let me know if I sound crazy or if you want to dig more into the details.
Also, this might be a stretch idea (not sure if Airtable can even do this) - we’d love to be able to schedule equipment/bundle check-outs (I found this platform - Equipment Scheduling Software - Cheqroom - but would rather use Airtable because we don’t need something as complex as Cheqroom)
