Sorry, confused with another group.
I have solved this case in bold, but is ignoring the "Having" and
generating "And"
Having *(sum (value) == 0) OR (sum (value) IS NULL);*
using:
.Where(Restrictions.Eq(Projections.Sum<MinhaClasse>((x) => x.Valor), 0) ||
Restrictions.IsNull(Projections.Sum<MinhaClasse>((x) => x.Receita)))
maybe use a coalesce
translated text below:
Hello,
Does anyone have any tips to put together a queryover with the Having
clause, but with two conditions?
ex .:
group by ...
Having (sum (value) == 0) OR (sum (value) IS NULL);
I've done like this:
.Where (Restrictions.Eq (Projections.Sum <MyClass> ((x) => x.Valor), 0)))
SQL generated:
group by ...
Having (sum (value) == 0)
I've done like this:
.Where (Restrictions.Or (Restrictions.Eq (Projections.Sum <MyClass> ((x) =>
x.Valor), 0)
Restrictions.Eq (Projections.Sum
<MyClass> ((x) => x.Valor), null));
SQL generated:
Error: Object reference not set to an instance of an object. Because the
value that I'm comparing is null.
Yet the value "Restrictions.Or" will return me out of the "Having". It will
be an "And".
What I need is that the second option (Restrictions.Eq (Projections.Sum
<MyClass> ((x) => x.Valor), null)) bring me sum (amount) is null;
Does anyone have any tips?
I thank you
Em quinta-feira, 7 de maio de 2015 08:11:26 UTC-3, Michael Powell escreveu:
>
> English please. Thank you.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"nhusers" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/nhusers.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
