searching criterias are stored in the users table and the list comes from the “Presta” table.
For one criteria (domain) user could choose multiple options, and “Presta” could have multiple options too.
The relation works fine and if one of the Presta domain match with the serching criterias, the name of the user is displayed.
My issue is that the name of all the users matching are in the row (depending their own search criterias stored in users table) and not only the connected one and at the end I don’t find the way to list only the ones matching with the connected user …
I can understand that my explanations are not enough to understand (also due to language issue cause i’m french ), so feel free to ask me more details if needed.
I think I understand what you are trying to do, but could you share some screenshots as well showing how the relation is set up in the Presta table?
I have a few different options:
Create a template column that returns the user profile email. Then create a relation where the template email matches the email in the user table. Then create a lookup column that returns the options from the relation. Finally create an IF column that checks if the Lookup values contain the Presta options.
Create a template column that returns the user profile email. Create a Query column to your user table with filters that check where the template email is the user table email, as well as a filter that checks if the Presta table options contain the user table options.
Create a Make Array column that returns the user profile options. Then create an IF column that checks if Presta options contain the Make Array options.
There may be other ways to do it, but those are a few. I don’t think a Relation on it’s own will work because you can either compare options or emails, but not both.
But I still had some errors because Presta could have one or several domains, and User could also search with no domains or several … So I tried this one :
Hmm, that will work with your final relation, but I was hoping it wouldn’t be necessary. I thought the ‘contains’ condition would work, even if the arrays weren’t exact matches, but I guess I was wrong.
I take another look. There should be a better and simpler way.