I am currently wanting to perform the following… Going to jump right in,
A user has a list of 3 items to purchase, he can purchase any item only once. So, if user purchases a subscription say Bronze, he can still purchase silver and gold, but bronze should be blocked.
every month (let’s just say 28th), the market closes and the data of what was purchased is cleared. So users can purchase the bronze, silver and gold once again.
I have a list of 3 items, a true or false that is set when a user makes purchase of an item.
Now, my problem is here:
If the user has ITEM 2 as True, inside the user properties…
how could i show the items that are false so the user can keep purchasing and blocking the ones set as true?
i was thinking of a relationship that sets the users that have purchased the items… But is it possible to then clear that list of users in that relationship on the app and not having to go to the DB?
At present i managed to perform a bulk action to update all items to false, but if i had the relationship, i can’t just clear it for the user to have no items,
I think you may be able to do this with the Users DB by setting 3 true/false options “Bronze” , “Silver” , “Gold” that once the user purchases one of those, the button also updates their user account to whichever was just purchased.
Make each button have a button directly under it (hidden while the other is visable) that are maybe grey in color, like it does not work.
Make the normal purchase buttons (on top) hidden, unless [__] is false
Make the grey-ed out buttons (directly below) hidden, unless [__] is true
In the Users DB i have these true or false properties already, When the user purchases bronze… i set the bronze to true. This then allows me to clear it later, but the problem is the visibility of bronze (making it invisible) after the purchase has been made.
Do you mean adding these buttons under the items aswell?
Here is an example:
User1 Purchase → Gold Members → Purchase successful --------- USER1 DB GOLD MEMBER → TRUE.
NOW this list is a list of Subscriptions: Where gold should be invisible or blocked for this user1.
But the list of Subscriptions does not recognise USER DB GOLD MEMBER without a relationship to that Subscription Item… Adding the relationship might allow me to hide that GOLD, but it wont allow me to clear All Relationships to Users at the end of the month from the functioning app admin portal (like i would using the True or False on the USERDB).
Having a many to many relationship… i can make the invisible accordingly, but at the time of clearing it. I am allowed to clear the logged in user, but not all users in bulk to restart the process next month again.
Sorry if i am confusing you, i am confusing myself also lol
The only solution i am finding for this is not practical… but might be a work around for someone in a similar boat.
Impracticle solution to problem
users obtains all information inside the user property
The problem is generally speaking the following:
When using a User(1toMany)Subscription Relationship
Or User(ManyToMany)Subscriptions
You can filter precisely as i would like, that is, allowing a user to purchase a subscription only once, but have 3 subscriptions available. (user purchases 1 of 3 subscriptions, next time round he only sees 2, purchase another different subscription and next time round he sees 1)
But, since i am looking to clear the data once a month so that the users can go back and redo the operation, the many side of things cant be cleared (so if a subscriptions relationship of Many has 10 users… I cant clear it all to start again).
My impractical solution and workaround, is to add the subscription details in the User table. All 3 of them with costs, description etc.
Having a list of users that only displays one Item and a Custom List that has all 3 subscriptions in that one item…
Grouping each subscription separately and making them visible on if user Purchase Boolean is false.
Setting the purchase boolean to true if a user purchases any of them.
I believe i will encounter problems with this…since its not practical at all,
But if any of you have a better solution, please I would really appreciate your ideas.
