InfoPath Dev

Sorry, I missed that.. Do I add it to the current set of rules or do I need to replace one of the conditions you set for me?

It would be on the current rule that sets field three - but I'm not sure that using a secondary data source for these default values makes much sense when you only want to set 3 very specific values. I'd probably just use the rules I already added for you but change the value field 3 is getting set to be your desired text.

Sorry, I set the xpath for j.1. in attached and it works for j.1. but when I add j.2., I get some rules were not applied. My test template has 5 specific values but I need to add about 10 more. I will have to do this one more time so if I can use xml for this it would be beneficial. Thank you!

I'm having such a hard time understanding what you want to do. Previously, you wanted to set 8.a., 8.b. and 8.c. Now you want to set j.1, j.2, j.3? And what exactly do you want to set field3 for that? Thanks.

Sorry about that. You provide the perfect solution for what I was asking for and I was hoping to be able to recreate it in my form. I was hoping for a solution that considered the use of a .xml file but wasn't clear on that. I should have provided a .xml the first time around but didn't think it was going to be that difficult for me to incorporate on my own, not realizing there was going to be such unique rules involved. I've incorporated everything you've provided into the attached test form, now I am trying to line up field 3 with the embedded .xml file rather than setting the default value so field 3 on row j. 1., j.2., j.3., j.4. and j.5. should have G-1, G-2, G-3/4, G-6 and G-8. I have about 20 more values to add to the .xml file once I get it working. You've helped me immensely and my form has come such a long way. Thank you very much.

I've tried consolidating my xml files for my master form, I have about 8 or 10 seperate xml files.  I've added it back to my form but when I add the xPath back for Situation it appears that Stituation, Execution and Command source data is being consolidated under all three paragraphs.  Is my xml file broken?

 Thanks!

Ah, I think I get it now - I think you mean the nesting is going to get deeper? Right now your secondary XML is down to repeating at subunit - will be there be additional groups nested in that?

I must have been replying to your previous question when you were posting this. Your XML file doesn't appear to be "broken" - I'm guessing the issue is with the XPath you are using to return data.

hmm, Here's an image. The reason I ask if it's broken is becuase under the secondary data source, for Situation I have (Choice)CI, (Choice)AMC, Staff, SubUnit.  I'd expect it to look as clean as when I display whats under Resource, Task, Appendices and Annex.  The only option that should be under Situation should be Subpara: Code and Name.

I think!

I'd guess IP devised that schema based on the way some Execution/Subpara nodes have a child AMC node and some have a child CI node?

Hopefully the secondary file I recently uploaded will be as deep as my nested data goes.  This has everything, these are the fields that the user needs to populate with data/information pertaining to each topic/subparagraph as needed.  It is not always necessary to fill in every item/topic only when it applies.  I am merely trying to provide a template.  Right now we use a Microsoft word template but users keep changing the font, auto formatting and there is no electronic workflow.  I'm trying to fix it so that we don't have to spend minutes and hours reformatting the fixed fields.

I got my xPath to take, but ended up with this error message.

xdXDocument:GetDOM("AMC_OrdersForm")/Order/Situation/Subpara[count(current()/preceding-sibling::my:group3_1) + 1]/Name

I stripped out the Execution paragraph from my xml file and here is how it looks now.  I'm guessing there is something not right with the prevoius secondary data source for it to look like it did.

Right - execution also has a group named subpara but it has a different schema, some with AMC nodes, some with CI nodes - maybe you could name subpara something different under execution? Maybe normalize the schema a bit instead of having CI or AMC? What does your Word doc that you are basing all this on look like?

Okay,

I played with the .xml file this morning.  It looks much better when reading it in IP, the two options under Execution still appear in Situation and Command but at least they are grouped where it makes sense.  I've tested it and can pull data from the secondary source into my form.  Now I'm back to Friday's post. Can you show me how to create the xPath to populate paragraph 3.j.(1) with my xml file without populating 3.a. - 3.i. I know its a slightly different request but I thought after I got the solution I would be able to massage it on my own.  I should have waited until I finished creating my .xml file.

 Thank you!