# Tickboxes

**URL:** <https://the.fmsoup.org/t/tickboxes/2542>\
**Category:** Questions\
**Tags:** filemaker\
**Created:** [October 27, 2021, 2:10pm UTC](https://the.fmsoup.org/t/tickboxes/2542 "2021-10-27T14:10:47Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 3\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![calculu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/3d9bf3/32.png) [@calculu](https://the.fmsoup.org/u/calculu)\
**Post date:** [October 27, 2021, 2:10pm UTC](https://the.fmsoup.org/t/tickboxes/2542/1 "2021-10-27T14:10:47Z")

</div>

We are migrating our database from FMP to some RoR environment (pfff...) and I need to tick off the contents of 30 _Fields_ against each record.

(Examples:

1. _Is company name correct_?
2. _Is Number of products identical_ to the list in the legacy DB?,
3. _Is Product Category correct_ and so on)

What is the best / most efficient way to do this in FMP: Do I create a new **Table & Layout** with separate Fields for each _Question_/_TickBox_, or design a new **Layout** based on an existing _Table_ that has most of the _Fields_ we need to compare and create just one new _Field_ for the _TickBox_?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Malcolm](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/flex030/user_avatar/the.fmsoup.org/malcolm/32/196_2.png) [@Malcolm](https://the.fmsoup.org/u/Malcolm)\
**Post date:** [October 27, 2021, 8:59pm UTC](https://the.fmsoup.org/t/tickboxes/2542/2 "2021-10-27T20:59:45Z")

</div>

Let's bet that the request will change in some way. In that case, having the questions appear as line items in a portal for each Questionnaire is the most flexible. Answers to questions are normally separated too.

So you end up with four tables: Questions, Questionnaire, Questionnaire\_join\_Questions, Answers.

Give Questions a field for ordering/sorting so that you can control that in the portal and reports.  
Depending on what a Questionnaire represents, you may want a field for ordering/sorting that too.

Over in the Answers table you summarise by Questionnaire, sorting by Questionnaire order and by Question order.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Cecile](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/flex030/user_avatar/the.fmsoup.org/cecile/32/98_2.png) [@Cecile](https://the.fmsoup.org/u/Cecile)\
**Post date:** [October 28, 2021, 11:06pm UTC](https://the.fmsoup.org/t/tickboxes/2542/3 "2021-10-28T23:06:32Z")

</div>

For questions that are negative, do you have to correct it? If so, if you don’t know the correct value do you want to be able to report those?

From a user standpoint I would proceed differently..

I would create a layout where you have side by side the legacy and new db record the latter modifiable

There would be 5 columns:  
RecordID, Note (for auditor, what is expected if not obvious), legacy value, new db value, verification button (logs auditor confirmation).  
It minimizes cognitive disruption and auditor can click it’s way down

That said I would prefer clicking on the non conform values which would become greyed and reportable. This simplifies reporting and on leave record, dialogue request auditor confirmation then all that are not greyed get approved mark.