Grouping Entries with Headers for each Group Based on Field

It feels like what you need is a “Stores” channel.

Then, when you select the entries from that channel, you will use the sort functionality of the channel entries tag.

Probably something like this:

{exp:channel:entries channel="stores" orderby="state|store_number" sort="asc|asc"}
    <h2>{state}</h2>
    <h3>{store_number}</h3>
{/exp:channel:entries}

However this doesn’t get your nice grouping by state with only one state at that top. If this is good enough, stop here. However, if you want that single state/multiple store listing,I’d use relationships.

I’d set up a states channel, populate it, then set up a relationship between states and stores so that each store belongs to one state, and then use the relationships tags to select the states channel entries and then the related stores for each state. There’s examples on that page that should get you started.

Thanks, Jay.

That’s a start. I actually worked it out to that point, but it’s really the headers I’m having trouble with. How can I loop through the entries and only repeat the state (used as the header) once for each group of returned entries? Of course, I could do it if I just repeat the channel entries tag over and over for each state, but that’s a lot of extra work and it seems like there must be a better way.

Is the relationships tag the answer? I can figure out the relationships tag in general, but could you do a quick sample in the context of what I’m trying to achieve?

Appreciated!

Once you get the channels (states and stores) and relationships (states - relationship (to stores, multiple)) set up, it’ll look something like this:

{exp:channel:entries channel="states"}
        <h2>{state}</h2>
        {parents field="stores"}
                <strong>{parents:store_name}</strong>: {parents:store_number} 

                {parents:address}
        {/parents}
{/exp:channel:entries}

Nice idea, but I think this approach might create additional work when it comes to adding new stores. Maintaining not only the addition of the store (which is expected, of course) but adding the maintenance of the relationship of each state to its stores. If I understand correctly, after I add a new store, I then need to go to the state channel and add the state’s relationship to that store. Ideally, I’d like to reverse the relationship so that when I create a new store, I can just select the state that it is related to as part of entering the store address. That way I only need to maintain one channel and its entries instead of 50 entries for states and 200+ entries for stores. Any thoughts? Did I misread your suggestion? Thanks again for the help!

As I understand it, relationships can be entered at either end. So you should be able to select a state when entering a store, instead of having to manage from the state end of things.

Is there any way to do this without creating a bunch of state channels? I can’t be the first person needing to group content this way and outputting headers for each group – can I? Anybody else have an idea? Thanks.

One state channel. Not a bunch. With fifty entries; one for each state. Then, each store (entry in the stores channel) is related to a state (entry in the states channel). This gives you your relationship.

You could use custom PHP coding to store the fact that the state had been written out and then not write it again unless it changes, but this seems like overkill when EE has built-in features to do what you want.

Lets be clear:

Here is your states channel:

States state_abbreviation: text input size 2 state_name: text input

Fill this up with the fifty states

Stores store_name: text input store_phone: text input store_state: relationship field (linked to States channel) (don’t allow multiple relations; each store can only be in one state)

Enter a couple of stores

Then, to display those stores:

{exp:channel:entries channel="states"}
        <h1>{state_name}</h1>
        {parents field="store_state"}
                <h3>{parents:store_name}</h3>
                {parents:store_phone}
        {/parents}
{/exp:channel:entries}

It’s literally that easy.

Edit: not that easy, used the wrong relationship in my first cut at this. The above code is the corrected version.

Edit 2: %#&*@%! relationships. Re-edited because of namespacing collisions due to EE’s handling of field names.

Thanks. However, your solution outputs the state names, but not any of the store info. In your example, how does the states channel know about the stores channel? If I’m understanding the relationship created here, states is the parent to stores. But in fact, the opposite is true.

One state channel. Not a bunch. With fifty entries; one for each state. Then, each store (entry in the stores channel) is related to a state (entry in the states channel). This gives you your relationship. You could use custom PHP coding to store the fact that the state had been written out and then not write it again unless it changes, but this seems like overkill when EE has built-in features to do what you want. Lets be clear: Here is your states channel: States state_abbreviation: text input size 2 state_name: text input Fill this up with the fifty states Stores store_name: text input store_phone: text input store_state: relationship field (linked to States channel) (don’t allow multiple relations; each store can only be in one state) Enter a couple of stores Then, to display those stores:

{exp:channel:entries channel="states"}
        <h1>{state_name}</h1>
        {parents field="store_state"}
                <h3>{parents:store_name}</h3>
                {parents:store_phone}
        {/parents}
{/exp:channel:entries}

It’s literally that easy. Edit: not *that* easy, used the wrong relationship in my first cut at this. The above code is the corrected version. Edit 2: %#&*@%! relationships. Re-edited because of namespacing collisions due to EE’s handling of field names.

Okay, looks like you may have a working solution here (with your edits). I’m giving it a try. Hold tight. Thanks!

Thanks. However, your solution outputs the state names, but not any of the store info. In your example, how does the states channel know about the stores channel? If I’m understanding the relationship created here, states is the parent to stores. But in fact, the opposite is true.

I’m assuming you typed this before I did Edits 1 & 2.

If so, please review the most recent code; it’s taken from a working implementation I just whipped up in the last few minutes.

It does show the store information properly. I had the inverted relationship code. I guess it’s because I hadn’t used relationships before today, just read about them.