I'm getting a verification error when I try to take the value of a field to a power of another field. Example being:
txtfield1^textfield2
or even simpler
2^2
Both fields are formatted as numbers, but InfoPath is telling me that "^" is an unexpected character
InfoPath does not have a mathematical operator for the "power to" out of the box. There are 3rd party add-ins that complement InfoPath browser and filler forms (Not SharePoint list forms) with a wealth of functionality, including many maths and financial functions. Have a look at Qdabra's qRules. It is not free, but costs less than a day's developer wages.
Related
Just wondering why there isn't that many ide that can edit native code at runtime.
Visual Studio is the only one that can do it?
gdb can "compile and inject code", but it only executes a single line of code, doesn't seem like it modifies anything.
Found this https://www.google.com/patents/WO2015200235A1?cl=en , but not sure where can I get the whole patent, it's just ocr without any graphic.
I need to know if that technique of starting all functions with 6 nop is patented, that's all I care. It's pretty old by now. I plan on developing a language, if that matters.
To get a full answer you would need to contact a patent attorney, patent search company or engage with an examiner at a particular patent office.
For the patent you found above, you can obtain more complete information, including drawings etc from WIPO PATENTSCOPE here.
The preliminary search report from WIPO indicates that claims 1,2 7, 9 10 and 15 are insufficiently novel, and claims 1-15 do not constitute an inventive step on the basis of obviousness.
The WIPO Application has entered into national phase under application EP15735802 in Europe, and the website shows two citations, one patent and one NPL (non-patent literature). I can't post the link because I am new to stack overflow and can only post two links, but you can use the 'national phase' tab of the link above to go direct to the European Patent Office website.
You can search Esp#cenet using keywords to see if there are other inventions out there which are close to your idea.
I know in CRM 2011 you can not convert a contact to lead. Is it possible in CRM 2013 .
In simple words i have created a contact and grouped it in to a account. I would like to convert this contact in to lead so that i can make a sales entry.
Strange all leading CRM package provides this , in 2011 its not available is it there in 2013.
This functionality is not available out of the box. However, there are a number of ways to implement this.
The easiest would be to create an 'On Demand' Workflow - that creates a Lead with information from the Contact. This can be run manually against specific Contacts - as I presume you don't want to do this for every Contact.
The alternative is to use the SDK, you could create a Lead from the information in the Contact and have a Ribbon button to invoke the SDK code.
Typically, you would convert (Qualify) a Lead into to an Account, Contact and/or Opportunity. It is unusual to convert a Contact to a Lead.
I think your problem is one of terminology, not functionality.
If you want to record a new potential sale for an existing Account or Contact, the most obvious thing to do would be to create an Opportunity.
If for some reason you want to create a potential potential deal, and want to use a Lead to hold this so you can do a more formal pre-qualification before you get to Opportunity, then just create a Lead linked to the Contact and Account. Since there is a relationship there already, you cold do this by adding a sub-grid on the Contact form, or adding Leads to the navigation on the form (like any other child entity).
You don't need to "convert" the Contact, keep that as it is and just add another record to represent the possible new sale.
I am trying to automatically populate a field through a calculated field.
Just a quick background we distribute equipment with serials numbers. This equipment is sometimes returned. So some customers have multiple products each with different status of returned, shipped and installed.
I would like to transfer this serial number to a field on the contact through a calculated field only if the status is installed or shipped.
I have tried:
related($products,"serial"),",",(related($products,"status"))
and
related(contains(status,"installed)"products,"serial")
I need this for reporting reasons and would be greatly appreciated if you could help.
Thanks
You need a combination of ifElse and equal and related and or
As an example, the following Sugar Logic formula can be placed on a Contact record and will populate the field with the related account's name if the related account is of the type "Reseller." If the Account is of some other account_type then the field takes the value of "nope!"
ifElse(equal(related($accounts,"account_type"),"Reseller"),related($accounts,"name"),"nope!")
If you wanted to add another condition, or allow for another acceptable Account Type, build in an or
When you're writing lengthy Sugar Logic like this, I find it helpful to start writing it out with indentation using a text editor:
ifElse(
or(
equal(related($accounts,"account_type"),"Reseller"),
equal(related($accounts,"account_type"),"Investor"),
),
related($accounts,"name"),
"nope!"
)
In some versions of Sugar I've had to remove the extra spacing but it seems like in 7.2.2.0 at least the editor actually allows and preservers the formatting, which is a pleasant surprise.
Couldn't find much support for this for R. I'm trying to read a number of RTF files into R to construct a data frame, but I'm struggling to find a good way to parse the RTF file and ignore the structure/formatting of the file. There are really only two lines of text I want to pull from each file -- but it's nested within the structure of the file.
I've pasted a sample RTF file below. The two strings I'd like to capture are:
"Buy a 26 Inch LCD-TV Today or a 32 Inch Next Month? Modeling Purchases of High-tech Durable Products"
"The technology level [...] and managerial implications." (the full paragraph)
Any thoughts on how to efficiently parse this? I think regular expressions might help me, but I'm struggling to form the right expression to get the job done.
{\rtf1\ansi\ansicpg1252\cocoartf1265
{\fonttbl\f0\fswiss\fcharset0 ArialMT;\f1\froman\fcharset0 Times-Roman;}
{\colortbl;\red255\green255\blue255;\red0\green0\blue0;\red109\green109\blue109;}
\margl1440\margr1440\vieww10800\viewh8400\viewkind0
\deftab720
\itap1\trowd \taflags0 \trgaph108\trleft-108 \trbrdrt\brdrnil \trbrdrl\brdrnil \trbrdrt\brdrnil \trbrdrr\brdrnil
\clvertalt \clshdrawnil \clwWidth15680\clftsWidth3 \clbrdrt\brdrnil \clbrdrl\brdrnil \clbrdrb\brdrnil \clbrdrr\brdrnil \clpadl0 \clpadr0 \gaph\cellx8640
\itap2\trowd \taflags0 \trgaph108\trleft-108 \trbrdrt\brdrnil \trbrdrl\brdrnil \trbrdrt\brdrnil \trbrdrr\brdrnil
\clmgf \clvertalt \clshdrawnil \clwWidth14840\clftsWidth3 \clbrdrt\brdrnil \clbrdrl\brdrnil \clbrdrb\brdrnil \clbrdrr\brdrnil \clpadl0 \clpadr0 \gaph\cellx4320
\clmrg \clvertalt \clshdrawnil \clwWidth14840\clftsWidth3 \clbrdrt\brdrnil \clbrdrl\brdrnil \clbrdrb\brdrnil \clbrdrr\brdrnil \clpadl0 \clpadr0 \gaph\cellx8640
\pard\intbl\itap2\pardeftab720
\f0\b\fs26 \cf0 Buy a 26 Inch LCD-TV Today or a 32 Inch Next Month? Modeling Purchases of High-tech Durable Products\nestcell
\pard\intbl\itap2\nestcell \lastrow\nestrow
\pard\intbl\itap1\pardeftab720
\f1\b0\fs24 \cf0 \
\pard\intbl\itap1\pardeftab720
\f0\fs26 \cf0 The technology level of new high-tech durable products, such as digital cameras and LCD-TVs, continues to go up, while prices continue to go down. Consumers may anticipate these trends. In particular, a consumer faces several options. The first is to buy the current level of technology at the current price. The second is not to buy and stick with the currently owned (old) level of technology. Hence, the consumer postpones the purchase and later on buys the same level of technology at a lower price, or better technology at the same price. We develop a new model to describe consumers\'92 decisions with respect to buying these products. Our model is built on the theory of consumer expectations of price and the well-known utility maximizing framework. Since not every consumer responds the same, we allow for observed and unobserved consumer heterogeneity. We calibrate our model on a panel of several thousand consumers. We have information on the currently owned technology and on purchases in several categories of high-tech durables. Our model provides new insights in these product markets and managerial implications.\cell \lastrow\row
\pard\pardeftab720
\f1\fs24 \cf0 \
}
1) A simple way if you are on Windows is to read it in using WordPad or Word and then save it as a plain text document.
2) Alternately, to parse it directly in R, read in the rtf file, find lines with the given pattern, pat producing g. Then replace any \\' strings with single quotes producing noq. Finally remove pat and any trailing junk. This works on the sample but you might need to revise the patterns if there are additional embedded \\ strings other than the \\' which we already handle:
Lines <- readLines("myfile.rtf")
pat <- "^\\\\f0.*\\\\cf0 "
g <- grep(pat, Lines, value = TRUE)
noq <- gsub("\\\\'", "'", g)
sub("\\\\.*", "", sub(pat, "", noq))
For the indicated file this is the output:
[1] "Buy a 26 Inch LCD-TV Today or a 32 Inch Next Month? Modeling Purchases of High-tech Durable Products"
[2] "The technology level of new high-tech durable products, such as digital cameras and LCD-TVs, continues to go up, while prices continue to go down. Consumers may anticipate these trends. In particular, a consumer faces several options. The first is to buy the current level of technology at the current price. The second is not to buy and stick with the currently owned (old) level of technology. Hence, the consumer postpones the purchase and later on buys the same level of technology at a lower price, or better technology at the same price. We develop a new model to describe consumers'92 decisions with respect to buying these products. Our model is built on the theory of consumer expectations of price and the well-known utility maximizing framework. Since not every consumer responds the same, we allow for observed and unobserved consumer heterogeneity. We calibrate our model on a panel of several thousand consumers. We have information on the currently owned technology and on purchases in several categories of high-tech durables. Our model provides new insights in these product markets and managerial implications."
Revised several times. Added Wordpad/Word solution.
I am a newbie in Infopath & Sharepoint. I am trying to create a form from Infopath 2013 and publish it as a document library to Sharepoint. I have some 60 fields that needs to be calculated(add) into another field. When tried to use the Design Checker, it throws an error as mentioned below in the screenshot. But it accepts if I key in only 45 fields in the Insert Formula text area. Is there any limitation on number of fields to be entered in Insert Formula? When I use PREVIEW in Infopath it works fine. This error pops up only when I try to publish it to Sharepoint. Any ideas on how to resolve this? - Thanks inadvance
InfoPath preview is rendered with IP Filler. The Browser experience has always been different, and the Filler preview is not a reliable check for the browser experience. You may have hit the limits of what a browser form can do. I don't have the numbers or limits, though.
Looking at the error message, you seem to be amassing an awful lot of calculations in one single field. My gut feeling is that this is very bad information architecture. What is the purpose of the form? What are you trying to achieve? Why would anyone have 60 fields in a form?
It looks as if you are summing a large number of cells. InfoPath is not a spreadsheet.
Use repeating tables to capture similar data. Then you can total the table entries with a standard IP function.
This looks like a sum of all the items a restaurant has on the menu. This is a perfect case for a repeating table. Don't use all 60 items on the menu in a list of 60 fields all in one form. That is overkill and not user-friendly. Create a repeating table structure where the user selects one of the 60 items and enters the transaction data. Each row of the repeating table can have another item of the list of 60. The grand total will be calculated from the entries.
If that is not viable, use helper fields to calculate sub totals by item category, and create a grand total from all the category totals.