I would like to accomplish two things with this:
Select (any) cell from a grid, and give the 'bands' of neighboring cells an ever increasing value (in this example 1 -5)
From the selected cell, select the next cell in a spiral fashion as show in blue, also accounting for if the 'route' leave the grid.
How would I go about this?
From your picture, you don't actually have to do it in spiral. The picture just shows, so to say, concentric circles (or, rather, squares).
You can calculate the next concentric square easily by subtracting or adding one to left/top or right/bottom edge coordinate correspondingly.
Related
I have a report with a tablix in it. I just need to stay the tablix in a fixed position and shouldn't push down other elements down it. If say there are 4 rows which will be visible in the specified space and if more then it should not be visible and shouldn't push down other elements.
I tried several ways to prevent
Added tablix inside a rectangle(act as a container) so if it grouped it
will not push down other elements (didn't work)
Enable consume white space in report=true (didn't work)
Keep items together property is set to true in rectangle (didn't work)
Is there any other way to not to pushdown elements in the report even if the tablix gives more rows. It should only show the rows in the mentioned size.
Edit : 1 (7/28/2018)
All the three elements below is pushed down if the table has more rows.
Either I have to fit the rows in this table by reducing the size automatically if possible or It should not push down the elements.
Also if the tablix has less row the elements will move up. I just need to keep the elements (Expr) should stay in the same position.
You still didn't post your design but anyway, here is what I think you want.
The basic idea to to set the area you want you table to cover by using a rectangle of the same size. Then we will reduce the row heights within reason as the number of rows in the table increases. As you cannot directly change a row height, we can get round this by setting the row height to be very small and adjusting the font, as long as the can grow option is on the cells will grow to fit the font size, giving the effect of changing the row height.
Basic steps.
Create your report and add a rectangle that is the maximum size you want your table to be. In my example it's 38mm high.
Create a table inside the rectangle. I find this easier to create it outside then cut and paste it inside, simply dragging it over the rectangle will not work.
Position your additional text boxes, under the rectangle as desired. Set 'Consume Container WhiteSpace' on in the report properties.
Next we need to decide what the maximum and minimum font sizes are that acceptable. In this basic example I only use 3 sizes, 10pt, 12pt and 14pt. If you want to use more then you could write an expression to scale the fonts more accurately but you get the idea.
You'll need to determine the maximum number of rows you can fit into the rectangle when the minimum font size is used, in my case it's 5 rows at 10pt font. Your query will need to take this number into account and never return more rows than this.
On the table, the click row selector for the detail row (this basically selects all the cells in the row). Next, change the font size property to an expression. In this simple example I used this.
=SWITCH(
Parameters!topx.Value <3 , "14pt",
Parameters!topx.Value <5 , "12pt",
True, "10pt"
)
Next set the row height, choose any cell on the row and set the height to something small, I used 4mm but it doesn't matter as long as its' smaller then you will ever show.
In my example, for testing I added a 'topx' parameter and filtered the dataset using this, but this is only for testing.
The final design looked like this. I added a background colour to the rectangle so you can see how it remains static until it's filled.
Then running with various rows looks like this
finally, only if I exceed my maximum (5 rows in this case) does the text below move down.
You could include a column (let's call it RowNumber) in your dataset that shows the row number of the data. Then in your Tablix filter, you can set the filter to show only values from that "RowNumber" column that are less than or equal to the number of rows you want to display in the tablix.
You can use the same concept to limit the number of rows returned in your query, but without knowing how you are getting the data, it is not possible to help with that.
If you want your report to be that static, why not take a screenshot of the data and include that as an image in your report?
No serious reporting tool will "ignore" records that you pass to it using a Dataset, so that's the place where you will have to "ignore" all unwanted data yourself. Restrict the data in the Dataset to only 4 rows (maybe using SELECT TOP 4 ...).
Quick Summary
I have an issue that only occurs when exporting my SSRS report to a Word document (something clients have requested). In short, when rectangle is shorter than its peer, Word inserts a page break even if there is plenty of whitespace left to render the longer column all on one page. I would like to resolve this so that Word takes advantage of the entire page when the peers are of different heights.
Layout
The highest level of the layout consists of three rectangles, as shown below:
The left and right rectangles are of fixed widths, but variable heights.
There is no extra space at the bottom of the Parent Rectangle; it expands based on the contents of the other two.
Each rectangle several other items and uses multiple datasets.
There are rectangles inside the rectangles, which group some of the child objects together.
Some of the controls are textboxes. I don't know the length of the text at design time.
Word Export Result
There is enough empty space above the footer to hold the entire left column, with excess.
If I open the document and manually enter empty lines into the right-hand column to increase its height, items from the left-hand column which have a height equal to or less than those line breaks will float back up to the first page. This is what makes me believe Word is cutting off at the shortest of the two peers.
Things I've Tried
Another thread suggested putting the columns into a table instead of rectangles, to force them to expand together. However, it required that they use the same dataset, which they do not.
Looked for CanGrow or ConsumeContainerWhiteSpace type options that could apply to rectangles, but couldn't find any. ConsumeContainerWhiteSpace is set to true on the report itself but makes no difference.
Attempted to create a function to dynamically set the inner rectangles' height, or the height/padding of a hidden textbox, based on the longer peer. Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be anything for fetching the height at runtime; the functions I found all rely on knowing static data such as the number of rows (of a fixed height) in the sheet, but each column has several fields of which the height is unknown prior to loading data.
Extended the height of each rectangle to that of a full page by default and tried to find a way to make the elements inside consume this empty space as needed. The space was never consumed, and always pushed down, resulting in an extra page of whitespace.
Question
Is there any way to notify Word to use its available whitespace rather than cutting off at the shortest peer? I've been looking for a long while and keep coming up empty-handed.
Thank you!
How about instead of using a rectangle, you use a List with two columns?
I think the list will do better with pagination than the rectangle. YMMV - Not sure how it exports to WORD.
Put your left rectangle in the first column and the right rectangle in the second column.
Use the same data set and Group on 1 (the number) so there's just one row.
Had the same issue. I managed to make it work by adding a horizontal line that take the whole width of the main rectangle just below the two child rectangles
I have textbox inside a table cell (this is the default configuration) and value in the text box's text is empty and it used purely as a toggle button for a child grouping. In the design image below I have colour coded for emphasis the 6 grouping levels in red (one pink). When I run it is all fine there is a single row of data, I click the toggle and the child group shows as this is the way I have set it up. I wanted to add something else to the cell that contained the toggle (i.e. the pink cell) so I changed my textbox to a rectangle and I added first in a sense the original textbox (placed in the top left hand corner of the rectangle) and ran the report and now the rectangle's height has grown to 2 rows at run time as supposed to one row (height of the textbox) at design time - why? Is there a way to prevent this?
NB: the run time screen shot is me changing the height and width of the rectangle to an arbitrary size greater than the width and height of the textbox. So when the report is run the width stays the same the height doubles.
Design Time
With 6 textboxes (NB: each box represents a different hierarchical (drill down) level)
After I change the 2nd textbox (counting right to left) to Rectangle (arbitrary height and width) + Textbox
Run Time
(NB: height of rectangle doubles in size at runtime compared to design time)
I have a report with has 2 rectangles side by side. I want to scale both of the same to the same size as when the number of rectangles increase.
How do I scale both of them equally as the number increases even if data in the Rectangles in not displayed(Null Values)
ScreenShot Below
Modified the "CanGrow" and "CanShrink" properties to "false" in All the textbox in both 2 rectangles
CanGrow=False
CanShrink=False
This should work.
I love math, but I've been banging my head on this for a while.
I'm trying to fill a non square space with in HTML5 canvas with squares. I know the container width (W) and height (H). And I know the number of squares to use (n)
But the size of the square is what were trying to figure out. And how to draw it then. The squares should be just big enough to cover all the space, but it doesn't have to be sqrt(n) / sqrt(n). It should fill as much space as possible.
Any ideas on where to look to solve this?
Thanks!
A first estimate would be dividing the area W*H by the number of squares n. That will give you the area for each square, and taking the square root of that area will give you its length.
But that only works in cases where the rectangle can be exactly filled by these squares. If you might need some overlap beyond the rectangle, then you might have to adjust either the lengths or the number of squares. So suppose you want to cover your rectangle (i.e. fill a slightly larger rectangle) with no more than n squares, choosing the squares as small as possible under these circumstances. Do the above computation. Suppose that tells you that you'll need 3.75 rows and 6.23 columns of squares. Then you know that more rows or columns will require more than n squares. So you'll have to assume 3 rows and 6 columns. You can compute square lengths of H/3 and W/6 and take the larger of these.
Your scenario often is unsolvable.
For example, consider a 2 x 3 area. You can't fit either 5 or 7 squares into this area.