Multiple unbound Combos

[SteveApa]

Hi all.



I have 4 unbound combo boxes on a form. I want to fill each combo box with filtered data based on the values of the other combo boxes - this way the order of the combo boxes would not effect the results. I tried to use the row source as a query with criteria. See below. This query would be used as row source for combo1 - using combo2, 3, 4 criteria to filter combo1. Then I would have a query like this for the other 3 combos. But, This query only works if I use 1 combo based on 1 other - will not work if I have 3 columns with criteria??? Thanks for the help.

This does not work...



This does work to filter combo1 based on value of combo2(only 1 criteria)

[rpeare]

put your criteria on successive OR lines unless you intend that the criteria match in all three fields (PLT Sub Group, Plating and Current Status) If you want to search for any of the variables based on the selection of the others.

[June7]

Don't think you need the IIf().


LIKE [comboGroup2] & "*"

[SteveApa]

I want each combo to have it's list based on the other 3 combos - regardless of what order the combos are set.

[June7]

I am not sure that is possible. Never seen anything like it. Regardless, the syntax I show for the LIKE operator and wildcard is correct.

[rpeare]

Personally, I would do this with code, because you can't simply requery, you have to check for the existence of a combination.

For instance let's say you have chosen items X in your first box, Y in your second box and Z in your third box. If you then go back and change X to W, it may completely invalidate choices Y and Z, in other words you may have no instances of the combination of variables if you change just one of them.

[SteveApa]

I just thought about what you said... The LIke and the *. Now I think I understand the logic. I will try it

[SteveApa]

rpeare. I understand and agree. If you were to go back and try to change X to W, W would not be shown in the combo... The combo should show up as empty and only X would be the possible choice... Right?