Lookup Table Parameters - Remove unlisted options

[jk1173]

I just finished making a somewhat complex block (in my opinion) that uses 21 visibility states, 3 lookup tables and a double lookup (thanks to Libbya).  All works as it should, but my issue is that I can select combinations from my lookup tables that aren't in my table. 

For example, my table has visibility combinations 2+2, 2+3, 3+3, and 3+4 - actual block has more.  I can easily select these, however I can also select 2+4 which has no affect on the block as this visibility does not exist.  Is there a way to limit my options to only those combination in my table?

Don't want to post my block, but if I gotta, I will.

Thanks for the help.  

[Libbya]

It would certainly be helpful for you to post the block but without it I will do my best to describe how to do what you want.

For states where you do not want specific options listed, use a 'contextual lookup'.  In other words, add another lookup parameter and table and make it visible for the state.  On the table list only the options you want to be available in that state.  Hide the prior table that listed all options. 

If you want me to make a screencast showing the step-by-step, you'll need to post the block.  

[h_s_walker]

Here is a working example of what @Libbya is describing. The block was actually finished using his suggestion.

[jk1173]

Here is my block.  I want to keep the lookup pulldowns on the left to choose the number of bars.  The problem is I don't know how to filter the combinations to match my table.  For instance, when I have 2 bars at the top, I can only have 2 or 3 bottom bars not 4, however I can still select 4 bottom bars, though nothing will happen.  I don't know if it is possible to filter or if I just have to remember my combinations.

Also, while I have you, I have a note block that acts weird.  It has a multi-line attribute in a box that is stretchable.  When I put in a large note and resize the attribute width, the width defaults back when I copy and paste this block to a different layout in the same drawing.  If I just copy or copy and paste in the same layout or in model, the size stays the same.  Is this just acting normally? 

[jk1173]

---

@h_s_walker wrote:

Here is a working example of what @Libbya is describing. The block was actually finished using his suggestion.

---

I came across this last night and watching Libbya's screencasts, but I don't think I can implement it with my block in this way.

[Libbya]

This screencast shows how to eliminate the 4 Top options from the top selection lookup when the bottom selection lookup is on 2 Bottom.

[Libbya]

I forgot to adjust the values on the double lookup input table so that if someone has top on 4 and switches bottom back to 2 the visibility switches to an appropriate visibility (I chose 3 top).  I hope that makes sense.  

[Libbya · Accepted solution]

I assume that my interpretation is correct that 4T and 4B do not become options unless the other one is not on 2.  Simply eliminating 4 from both top and bottom selections could create a couple issues.  One issue is that if a user wants 4 on one of the selections, they need to switch the other selection off 2 prior to having 4 as an option.  If the user knows they want 4T 4B and looks at the top selection and sees 4 missing, leaves it on 2 and looks at the bottom selection to see it is missing, it might cause confusion as to how to get to the 4,4 option.  The other issue is that even if the user knows the selection process, it takes an extra click.  They need to first switch one of them to 3, then switch the other to 4, then go back and select 4 from the first selection.  That lacks a certain amount of grace in execution.  Instead of simply eliminating the 4 option from the selection, I would add the appropriate 4T 2B options, but simply make the additional circles another color and non-plotting.  That gives a placeholder option but won't plot an option that does not exist.  

[Libbya]

On your note block, I can confirm the behavior you noted but that is the first I've become aware of it.  Looks like a glitch with multiline attributes.  I don't know of a solution other than to resize the attribute in each layout.  

[jk1173]

---

@Libbya wrote:

I assume that my interpretation is correct that 4T and 4B do not become options unless the other one is not on 2.  Simply eliminating 4 from both top and bottom selections could create a couple issues.  One issue is that if a user wants 4 on one of the selections, they need to switch the other selection off 2 prior to having 4 as an option.  If the user knows they want 4T 4B and looks at the top selection and sees 4 missing, leaves it on 2 and looks at the bottom selection to see it is missing, it might cause confusion as to how to get to the 4,4 option.  The other issue is that even if the user knows the selection process, it takes an extra click.  They need to first switch one of them to 3, then switch the other to 4, then go back and select 4 from the first selection.  That lacks a certain amount of grace in execution.  Instead of simply eliminating the 4 option from the selection, I would add the appropriate 4T 2B options, but simply make the additional circles another color and non-plotting.  That gives a placeholder option but won't plot an option that does not exist.  

---

Man, that was a wild ride.  I had to go ahead and add the 2+4 / 4+2 visibilities for the middle bar options as well and it seems all is working now.  Thank you for using your massive brain power to help.  All hail Libbya!!

[jk1173]

---

@Libbya wrote:

On your note block, I can confirm the behavior you noted but that is the first I've become aware of it.  Looks like a glitch with multiline attributes.  I don't know of a solution other than to resize the attribute in each layout.  

---

Good to know it wasn't just me.  Thanks for checking.