Family Historian User Group

Sorry Mike, here is is....
%INDI.FAMS[1]>CHIL[1]>% (=LifeDates(%INDI.FAMS[1]>CHIL[1]>%)) %INDI.FAMS[1]>CHIL[2]>% (=LifeDates(%INDI.FAMS[1]>CHIL[2]>%)) %INDI.FAMS[1]>CHIL[3]>% (=LifeDates(%INDI.FAMS[1]>CHIL[3]>%)) %INDI.FAMS[1]>CHIL[4]>% (=LifeDates(%INDI.FAMS[1]>CHIL[4]>%)) %INDI.FAMS[1]>CHIL[5]>% (=LifeDates(%INDI.FAMS[1]>CHIL[5]>%))
all on one line (copied and pasted from the expression box).

PS .... why when i add a snip image, does it appear so large?

I had not actually entered the full 5-child expression until now as it seemed to work Ok for 2 children.
On closer inspection, and with the 5-child expression I get the same effect as you of a missing trailing bracket.
Sorry, I have no explanation for that.

I suggest you report it to CP via their http://www.calico-pie.com/osticket/open.php support ticket service.

The only workaround I can think of is to enter each child expression as a separate item so each child is listed on a separate line.

Thanks Mike, will do that.

The only problem with adding them separately is that you have to have a label, which looks a bit silly on each line, esp with 15 children, so i think i'll leave the standard child entry as is for most, and just add in for those with more than 1 marriage / children.

I tried the trick of leaving labels blank for all bar the first child (or just an invisible space), but FH won't permit that.

I tried a space too (works in pivot tables in excel so seemed a sensible idea)

Deirdre784 wrote: ↑

07 Feb 2023 07:54

PS .... why when i add a snip image, does it appear so large?

What is your setting for Tools > Preferences > Display > Screen Font Scaling? That's not just a passive zoom of the type you may be familiar with in other apps such as web browsers or Word/Excel, etc. It actually enlarges the font, so could potentially cause problems if screen images are copied into other applications.

Hi Mark, i assume you mean within FH? That's 100%. Don't recall changing it myself, so what should it be?

tatewise wrote: ↑

07 Feb 2023 11:09

I suggest you report it to CP via their http://www.calico-pie.com/osticket/open.php support ticket service

Hi Mike, just to let you know I did report it and had a very quick reply asking what happened if I split the function over 2 or more lines.

I've been in work until 30 mins ago but have tried it and come to the conclusion that if I enter 3 on a line and there are 3 children, it’s fine. But if there are only one or two then the last child loses the end bracket. Same happens if i add children 4-6 in another line. If 6 it's fine, but any fewer and the last one loses the bracket.

I have replied to Calico Pie and will update if / when I get any more news.

100% is the default, so nothing amiss there. I'm stumped...

Thanks Mark, not wanting to fully show real people i have only posted small snips. Maybe if a full width it wouldn’t look so silly.

Reply from Calico Pie….

‘If the same problem occurs on fewer children use a textif function with string concatenation to wrapper the elements for the lifedates, as FH is currently working as designed and removing text after the last valid field’

Unfortunately that is beyond me - though it’s not the whole of the last valid field which is missing, just the closing bracket - so i’ll revert to the standard child entries. Thanks for your help Mike.

Deirdre

Being pedantic, I think empty vs containing nothing is closer to object orientation theory, but I agree that no bucket versus empty bucket is a better metaphor for explaining it. Mind you, it’s nearly 25 years since I did that course (programming different coloured frogs to jump up and down using Smalltalk), so that’s probably about the limit of what I remember!

Mark
You have brought back memories.
That sounds like M206 from the OU.
Been there, got the T shirt.
Robin

Calico Pie have responded again offering this suggestion (not tried it yet!)

Yes, as I said it is stopping output after the last valid output.

You could try something like:
%INDI.FAMS[1]>CHIL[1]>% =CombineText("(",LifeDates(%INDI.FAMS[1]>CHIL[1]>%)")")
%INDI.FAMS[1]>CHIL[2]>% =CombineText("(",LifeDates(%INDI.FAMS[1]>CHIL[2]>%)")")
%INDI.FAMS[1]>CHIL[3]>% =CombineText("(",LifeDates(%INDI.FAMS[1]>CHIL[3]>%)")")
%INDI.FAMS[1]>CHIL[4]>% =CombineText("(",LifeDates(%INDI.FAMS[1]>CHIL[4]>%)")")
%INDI.FAMS[1]>CHIL[5]>% =CombineText("(",LifeDates(%INDI.FAMS[1]>CHIL[5]>%)")")

all on one line.

Will give it a go later (or maybe tomorrow!).

That’s the one! My employer generously paid for a three year Diploma course even though the IT was really only peripheral to my role at the time. Year two was practical application using Borland C++ Builder (useful for constructing plugins and their UI correctly) and year 3 was relational databases (invaluable for querying RM!)

Deirdre, I understand what CP are saying and have a revised expression that works by using =CombineText(...) function:

%INDI.FAMS[1]>CHIL[1]>% =CombineText("(",LifeDates(%INDI.FAMS[1]>CHIL[1]>%),")",) %INDI.FAMS[1]>CHIL[2]>% =CombineText("(",LifeDates(%INDI.FAMS[1]>CHIL[2]>%),")",) %INDI.FAMS[1]>CHIL[3]>% =CombineText("(",LifeDates(%INDI.FAMS[1]>CHIL[3]>%),")",) %INDI.FAMS[1]>CHIL[4]>% =CombineText("(",LifeDates(%INDI.FAMS[1]>CHIL[4]>%),")",) %INDI.FAMS[1]>CHIL[5]>% =CombineText("(",LifeDates(%INDI.FAMS[1]>CHIL[5]>%),")",) %INDI.FAMS[1]>CHIL[6]>% =CombineText("(",LifeDates(%INDI.FAMS[1]>CHIL[6]>%),")",)

Just copy and paste that into the Children expression and keep repeating the pattern for as many children as needed by adding %INDI.FAMS[S]>CHIL[C]>% =CombineText("(",LifeDates(%INDI.FAMS[S]>CHIL[C]>%),")",)
where S is the spouse number and C is the child number.

Regarding screenshots, try adjusting the size /dpi in a graphics editor such as IrfanView before posting the attachment.

Cheers Mike, fell asleep watching TV (quite a stressful IT day in work) so will try this tomorrow. Thanks for your patience.

Hi Mike, bizarrely both your version (up to 6 children) and the one from CP (up to 5) produce the same output, and both only show the first 4 children (there are 7 in the family as posted below, shown in the 'family' section).



Thanks for suggestion of using IrfanView; still quite large but not as big as usual

We seem to have hit some other limiting factors of FH. There appear to be limits to how much text can be displayed by the Expression and how long the Expression text itself is allowed to be.

I have revised the Expression to allow 6 children to be displayed in one item as shown below but if a 7th child is added it does not work at all because the Expression is too long:

=CombineText(,Text(%INDI.FAMS[1]>CHIL[1]>% . " (" . LifeDates(%INDI.FAMS[1]>CHIL[1]>%) . ") " . %INDI.FAMS[1]>CHIL[2]>% . " (" . LifeDates(%INDI.FAMS[1]>CHIL[2]>%) . ") " . %INDI.FAMS[1]>CHIL[3]>% . " (" . LifeDates(%INDI.FAMS[1]>CHIL[3]>%) . ") " . %INDI.FAMS[1]>CHIL[4]>% . " (" . LifeDates(%INDI.FAMS[1]>CHIL[4]>%) . ") " . %INDI.FAMS[1]>CHIL[5]>% . " (" . LifeDates(%INDI.FAMS[1]>CHIL[5]>%) . ") " . %INDI.FAMS[1]>CHIL[6]>% . " (" . LifeDates(%INDI.FAMS[1]>CHIL[6]>%) . ") "),,)

To display 6 more will require another item called say Continued with a similar Expression but for children 7 to 12 and so on for children 13 to 18

The maximum length of the Expression itself seems to be about 500 characters.
I have run into similar limits before and after reporting them CP eventually fix FH to allow unlimited length Expressions.
Unfortunately, each separate category of Expression is fixed separately rather than being fixed globally for all Expressions

Since CP themselves provided an Expression that does not work, then I suggest you continue the support ticket dialogue saying that their Expression only displays 4 children and if the Expression is extended beyond 500 characters it does not work at all.
So how do they suggest say 10 children can be displayed as one item?

Thanks Mike, i have just seen a reply from CP which says…..

‘It may have exceeded the maximum length for a single field. I suggest spliting it over 2 lines and using " for the title on the second entry’

So it looks like i will have to give up on this idea, though it will work - and i will use it - where children were born in more than one marriage.

Being able to use “ as the title / label on a second line is handy though, as both Mike and i had tried a space.

I suspect there is more to it than CP are suggesting.

My latest Expression displays 6 children which is much longer than the 4 children of the earlier Expressions.
So the single item display limit is not very rigid.
Perhaps CP could explain those two limits if you supply my latest Expression to them.

What is more definite is the Expression length limit of about 500 characters.
Please persist with CP and ask if that limit can be eliminated as they have done in the past for other limited Expressions.

In computing terminology, it is probably a matter of replacing a fixed-length text field with a variable-length text field to hold the Expression text.

Hi Mike, just finished my lunch break sorry but will go back to CP later.

I had already asked if it was possible to extend the length and they have replied……

‘I can suggest it to the developers for consideration for the next version, but I recommend using the solution I suggested for now’

Hi Mike, I tried your latest 6 child expression tonight and this is what i get.....
Here's what i get for a family of 5 children.....
All I did was copy and paste the expression into a new 'Children' item in the Family Member Main Items section, and as previously, set the default 'Children' to hide. So I think it's time to accept that I can't (at least at the moment) get what I want, so I will revert to the default children, and add the earlier expression you gave me for those who had children with more than one spouse.

Thanks for all your efforts Mike, and thanks to Mark for joining in too

Just tried it with a new family group sheet on one of my larger family groups (15 children). I only get 6 here, but eg 2 names and 4 sets of () for less than 7. Not tried going onto a second expression for later children. Ignore the 'test' in the label....

Yes, sorry, my latest expression does have that side effect
I only tested it with 6 or more children, really just to prove more than 4 could be displayed.
Forgot to test it with fewer than 6 children.