Module Builder - one-to-many relationships in subpanel

[kenneth.thorman]

This is a continuation of a the thread found here http://www.sugarcrm.com/forums/showthread.php?t=27585 for 5.0RC. This issue is still there to my knowledge in the 5.0 final release. I have posted a possible solution to this located here http://www.sugarcrm.com/forums/showt...5096#post95096

Any feedback on this from the SugarTeam would be very welcome (I am sure you get many such requests).

Regards
Ken

[Kalendrinn]

As I see it those are two entirely separate problems to solve. The first thread you linked is easily solved by creating a new module called Sub-Project and adding a one-to-many relationship to Projects. V5 will do that without an issue now. I have done the same thing with a basic module and Accounts in my efforts to get Documents related to various modules.

[kenneth.thorman]

I guess you might be right

"I might have missed something here, but I still cant seem to create a 1-many relationship. What I'm trying to achieve is to have one module with a 'select/clear' box to select one record of a related module, and have that module have a subpanel with the one or more records from the former related module.

I.e. 'Project' has one or more 'Sub-Projects'. Each 'Sub-Project' belongs to just one 'Project'.

Can we do this in this version/ GA/ any clues on how I do it? ( I do realise there is a 'Relate' type field but this doesnt automatically create a subpanel in the related module. I dont want both the module and related module to have subpanels - just one of them)"

I interpreted this as if they wanted to be able to show info in the subpanel that was actually related info to the entity directly listed in the subpanel (i.e. allowing the subpanel listed entity use a join for lookup values). Rereading the post makes me unsure about this.

[Kalendrinn]

Yeah, could be. I think they are simply talking about making a one-to-many relationship between two modules (and only two) with only one module showing a subpanel...which is easy enough. Guess it requires clarification from the original poster twguk.