[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Expected behaviour for absent fields

From: Adrian Ashley
Subject: Re: Expected behaviour for absent fields
Date: Thu, 01 Apr 2004 14:05:53 +0100
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20031007

Mel Hatzis wrote:

It's inclusion in the 'index' fields is also relevant here.
Based on your observed behaviour, I assume that it's also
not defined as an "index" field.

That's true.

[ The reason this is relevant is that all fields defined in
  the "index" are assigned an empty value in the index, when
  a PR is added to the index. Subsequent GNATS queries will
  use the index to determine the field value, and therefore
  a NULL value wouldn't be returned. ]

Is this a Feature? Perhaps the fact that a field is defined in the index ought to have a side-effect of setting its value to "" if there is no default?

Given the relatively small size of the fix-rel values, I
suggest you might want to try adding the field to the "index"
as a work-around. This should address the query problem you have
and won't otherwise be much of an impact on your existing

I did this, and it works.  Thanks.

Adrian Ashley
Broadcom Corp.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]