Fix bug with reference properties in queries #1886
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
…int were being treated as strings instead of ints
kgrgreer
reviewed
Feb 8, 2019
This reverts commit e164f49.
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
I noticed the query
owner=101wasn't working in the general search box in the DAO controller, which is supposed to be a valid MQL query. I looked into it and noticed that since the propertyownerwas defined via a relationship, it was aReference, not aLong. The query parser was only recognizing numeric properties by checking if they were an instance offoam.core.Int, so it was treating allReferenceproperties as containing string values. Therefore the query parser was generating anIN_IC(OWNER, ["101"])mlang instead ofEQ(OWNER, 101).This commit fixes that issue by checking if the property is a reference to a long property and if so, treating its value as a number, not a string.
I did a full-project search for other places we might be doing the same thing and only found one place, so it's presumably fixed there as well.