Can you please provide full queryover you are trying to build? Best Regards, Alexander
On Friday, 8 May 2015 01:49:40 UTC+12, glautter neves wrote: > > 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.
