Is there any convenient way of knowing which action type number means?
I know I can do it by hovering over the table but it would be nice to be able to actually report this way instead of having to refer back to
Thanks
The discussion revolves around identifying user action types in a database, particularly how to convert numeric action codes (e.g., ‘1’ for ‘like’) into readable labels. SStrong asks for a more convenient method to map action type numbers to their meanings, noting that hovering over the table is not ideal for reporting. JammyDodger suggests using a CASE statement or similar techniques to make the data more readable, referencing a guide on improving result clarity. RGJ points out that the linked guide already explains the solution. SStrong acknowledges having missed the link initially but confirms the method works. SStrong clarifies that while the solution works, they were looking for a quicker way, possibly via a join to another table, but ultimately accepts the CASE approach as sufficient and marks JammyDodger’s comment as the solution.
Is there any convenient way of knowing which action type number means?
I know I can do it by hovering over the table but it would be nice to be able to actually report this way instead of having to refer back to
Thanks
OK, so I’m unsure how to get the “like” for 1 to appear in the data as opposed to just “1” which as you said, it’s not that useful.
Is there another table other than user actions I need to join to to get this? I took a look myself and it wasn’t clear, plus I’ve already had to snip that tooltip in order to have some semblance of an idea behind the numbers which isn’t ideal or automated.
Did you read the topic that JammyDodger linked to? It explains how to do it.
I’d been clicking in the data explorer links and just being taken to a lot of info, I hadn’t noticed the other link that had been posted so reading it now
Read it, it’s what I’d already done but didn’t know if there was a quicker way (i.e. if there was another table to easily link to instead of creating another with statement)
Have marked his comment as the solution