Thread

Just a quickie - is there any way to use this on multiple custom fields:

search:custom_field="not IS_EMPTY"

So, if either file_relationship_event OR file_relationship_conference have content, then show the entry:

In mangled EE code:

{exp:channel:entries channel="memberarea" orderby="date" dynamic="off" search:file_relationship_event="not IS_EMPTY" OR search:file_relationship_conference="not IS_EMPTY"}
    {title}
{/exp:channel:entries}

Alternatively, if this needs the query module - any tips on code for that one?

Thanks!

Hi Jon,

Is it a standard relationship field or Playa or similar?

You could just use a conditional for the existence of a 0 value which is the default for a relationship field

{exp:channel:entries channel="memberarea" orderby="date" dynamic="no"}
    {if file_relationship_event != '0' OR file_relationship_conference != '0'}
     {title}
    {/if}
{/exp:channel:entries}

Does that help?

Thanks John - It’s 2 Playa fields, actually.

I hadn’t thought of that because I only want to output 1 entry (limit=1), and show the entry (an event/conference) the resource in the memberarea channel is related to so figured that would be quite an inefficient of doing it? 

Since not every entry in memberarea holds a relationship with an entry, I can’t use ‘limit=1’ on the channel entries tag with that method, as the first entry might not hold a relationship.

Essentially, we’re looking to:

Show first entry in channel="memberarea" where file_relationship_event OR file_relationship_conference !="" and only output 1 result for this query

Hi Jon,

In the scenario you describe, you might have to let {ep:channel:entries} retrieve more than 1 entry, and then apply your logic via John Henry’s suggested conditionals, and then use Playa’s limit parameter to achieve the results you are looking for. However, I have no experience with Playa so that’s all conjecture on my part, after reading through the Playa docs.

Cheers,

Thanks guys - we fiddled around with things a little bit and simplified the process a bit. 

The queries were a bit too memory intensive to be worth it, really, but we do at least have something that does the trick, based on a little bit of your suggestion, John!

Good stuff! Feel free to start a new thread if you have any more questions.