‘{ENTITY NAME:Tables}’ == ‘’ or ‘{ENTITY NAME:Birthday Party}’ == ‘’
Ive tried every combination, but cant figure it out.
‘{ENTITY NAME:Tables}’ == ‘’ ‘{ENTITY NAME:Birthday Party}’ == ‘’
I had this problem which is solved, but now I have to also have it happen if a Birthday Party is selected.
@JTRTech do you still have these constraints? How are yours now?
EDIT: I have found a workaround by using {ENTITY NAME:Birthday Party:Age Of Child} < 1 on the rule constraints
Would still be good to work this out though
What constraints sorry?
Looking at your example I would expect you’ll need to TN() it in order to use > larger than…
Sorry, the Hold Ticket rule for your switch users function. The above topic posted, you had the same problem as me… I had a work around but that’s much cleaner.
Now I’m creating Birthday Parties, I have the same issue again… however unable to make the constraint work if X or Y = ‘’
I don’t need < or > just == and !=
I am due to do a new system next week and while doing it I plan to do a video tutorial on the best switch user setup there will be 
Anyway the setup at the minute uses the hold ticket setup with a login constraint which counts hold ticket for that user and prompts them on login.
If only one open will show hold ticket, if more will show hold ticket list for that user.
But it also gives option to ignore and start a new ticket.
I also then make a dynamic headed automation command which shows total number of hold tickets which opens a hold ticket list.
The plan would also then be to add a state time into it and if a ticket has been on hold more than say 5 minutes prompt all users with a message saying a ticket has been on hold for X amount of time.
Yer, you sent me that tutorial in a PM. Had it all working till I accidently restored over the top of a database then detached it. Lost it all… oops
Its all working at the mo, so I guess itll do. Just backed up and now testing all scenarios… wanna get this sent to the remote till tonight ready for use tomorrow
So which bit you conserned about?
Which constraint?
to be honest, I think itll be ok… I decided the most important field to be filled would be the phone number… sort of the most important…
What’s birthday got to do with switch user?
Sorry, not entirely sure what your doing.
Not convinced telephone number is a good constraint…
My Birthday party system… which I’m quite impressed with if I say so myself… Creates an entity, and allows preorder for the party food order to be put on. so Almost like a table entity.
So… if a user creates a birthday party, assigns the ticket to it then logs out… when they log in, the party ticket comes up.
Obviously I don’t want that… so I need to prevent this updating the system setting for USER NAME
It’s not a switch user setup then…
You would want to omit those tickets from the switch user close ticket flow. Which I guess is what your trying to do.
I would suggest maybe a new automatic ticket tag or state added for bookings in the background which makes it excluded from the witch user flow.
Well, theyre already given a State… would a State constraint work in a rule constraint?
A rule can have a constraint based on state yes if that’s what you mean.
ok, so what we looking at? {SETTING:Status} = BParty?
Also do not mess with default states so stay away from Status. We explain that over and over. Create your own state flow.
{TICKET STATE:X} Is the syntax. SETTING:X is for settings.
Unless you created a setting called that then no.
You would use {TICKET STATE:StateName} == State
I wasw using an example.
Status is BParty State is Open 
let me give that a go!
You wouldn’t want to use status state as kendash said.
Make your own state of BParty and state Open.
Leave the default stays state alone unless you really know what your doing.
I think that’s what he did he just can’t speak states well.
