Filtering Criteria in forms..

Hi… The requirement is that i need to filter out all those items that are starting with DI.I have 140 items starting with DI, eg DI-12345-9k-Z01 and so on. I want a result set that shows me all the items except the ones starting with DI. I have tried with all filtering criteria of <>DI, *,@,&. …,<,> <> combination also, i still dont get the desired result. Please, can u kindly suggest me a single step filtering as i dont want to filter the item list once and then apply another filter and another to achieve the desired result. Venax

Hi Strange. I’ve never noticed this problem. Maybe this will work: A*…DH*|DJ*…Z* bye Andre

The ! operator with wildcards is simply not supported.

It’s not a single step but you could mark all the records, set your filter to DI, remove the marks on those records, clear your filter, then set the filter to marked only.

Hi… I wasn’t looking from the coding point of view. I wanted this to be from the forms,using F7,Shift + F7. Thanks for your time. venax

Hi Venax, see my above posting. I’ve tested this in our database. It works in forms & as a single step. Andre


Originally posted by robertc
The ! operator with wildcards is simply not supported.

Yes, right. And I have always found this a bit odd - considering that filters are perhaps the single most important technique that Navision relies on, the “not containing” filter should really have been included in the feature list. Even Excel can do this kind of stuff [:0]

Robert, Heinz: Please enlighten me. Can I use the ! operator in Attain (without wildcards)? I’ve never heard about this. bye Andre

I presume Robert was using ! as the C-style version of “NOT” or “<>”, and I simply followed this convention. The ! operator is definitely not supported in Financials. I have no experience with Attain. Sorry if this caused some confusion. [:I]

Hallo Heinz, thank you for the information. bye Andre

Exclusion (<>, NOT) and wildcards do not work together well in Attain or Financials, never have.

Sorry, sorry, and thank you xorph … I did mean the <> operator.