Skip to main content
Answer

Consolidate GI Results By Checking A Checkbox

  • September 2, 2025
  • 2 replies
  • 37 views

Forum|alt.badge.img

Is it possible to code a GI to consolidate GI filter results by checking a check box? 


We sell flower bulbs in different pack sizes. I made a GI that we can filter by variety name, but it needs to show all individual pack sizes (3 separate stock items). But once I get my sales order range I then need to consolidate those results based on inventory ID.

Is it possible to consolidate GI results on the fly like that?

Best answer by MichaelShirk

@SBaldwin I’m sure you’re aware that you need to create a parameter on the GI design to use for this “Group Results” checkbox, or whatever you want to call it. 

On the “Grouping” tab of the GI design you can use a formula to define the grouping logic, and that formula can use the parameter. 
The trick here may be to use an “IF” statement in the grouping formula to check if the “Group Results” value is checked (true). If true, group by InventoryID, if false, then I believe you need to use some other value to group by. I don’t think you can leave it empty. Is there a value that will be unique when you don’t have the box checked?

2 replies

MichaelShirk
Captain II
Forum|alt.badge.img+5
  • Captain II
  • Answer
  • September 2, 2025

@SBaldwin I’m sure you’re aware that you need to create a parameter on the GI design to use for this “Group Results” checkbox, or whatever you want to call it. 

On the “Grouping” tab of the GI design you can use a formula to define the grouping logic, and that formula can use the parameter. 
The trick here may be to use an “IF” statement in the grouping formula to check if the “Group Results” value is checked (true). If true, group by InventoryID, if false, then I believe you need to use some other value to group by. I don’t think you can leave it empty. Is there a value that will be unique when you don’t have the box checked?


Forum|alt.badge.img
  • Author
  • Varsity I
  • September 2, 2025

Thank you! That makes sense :) I think I can find another unique value for the false statement!