I think we agree with each other. The problem is that somebody may add
auth.signature later and therefore precent records will have
is_active=None. The user will have to manually set is_active from None to
True.
On Saturday, 22 December 2012 07:08:58 UTC-6, Niphlod wrote:
>
> uhm....
> the thing is, if you have record versioning, all active records should be
> marked with True. There's no point in record versioning if active records
> can be False or True *or None*. They can be either True or False to
> correctly identify the single active record on those tables..... am I
> missing something ?
>
> On Saturday, December 22, 2012 12:52:59 AM UTC+1, Massimo Di Pierro wrote:
>>
>> It is correct in the sense it is what I intended it to be. You are
>> proposing a change of behavior. I see where you are coming from. Please
>> open a ticket about this.
>>
>> I would like to have some more opinions about this. Should None in
>> is_active be treated as True?
>>
>>
>> On Friday, 21 December 2012 14:02:25 UTC-6, Cliff Kachinske wrote:
>>>
>>> SQL is incorrect.
>>>
>>> is: "AND supplier_contacts.is_active = 'T'"
>>> should be "AND (supplier_contacts.is_active = 'T' OR
>>> supplier_contacts.is_active IS NULL)"
>>>
>>> On Friday, December 21, 2012 1:05:16 PM UTC-5, Massimo Di Pierro wrote:
>>>>
>>>> It looks to be the generated SQL is correct. It is possible you enabled
>>>> record versioning and that added the common_filter is_active==True. Yet
>>>> perhaps you have records with is_active=None and therefore they showed up
>>>> before and not now.
>>>>
>>>> On Friday, 21 December 2012 10:50:13 UTC-6, Cliff Kachinske wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Salient details from two tables:
>>>>>
>>>>> db.define_table(
>>>>> 'suppliers',
>>>>> Field('name', length=256, required=True, notnull=True),
>>>>> ....
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> db.define_table(
>>>>> 'supplier_contacts',
>>>>> Field('supplier_id', db.suppliers),
>>>>> Field('first_name', length=32, required=True, notnull=True),
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The code below worked in 1.99.7. If the supplier had two contacts, it
>>>>> would return two rows as expected, both with the same supplier data but
>>>>> each with individual contact data.
>>>>>
>>>>> In 2.2.1 it returns no rows.
>>>>>
>>>>> def get_approved_suppliers(product_id):
>>>>>
>>>>> return db(
>>>>> (db.product_suppliers.product_id==product_id) &
>>>>> (db.product_suppliers.supplier_id==db.suppliers.id)
>>>>> ).select(
>>>>> db.suppliers.id,
>>>>> db.suppliers.name,
>>>>> # more supplier details omitted for brevity,
>>>>> db.supplier_contacts.id,
>>>>> db.supplier_contacts.first_name,
>>>>> # contact details omitted for brevity.
>>>>> left = db.supplier_contacts.on(
>>>>> db.supplier_contacts.supplier_id==db.suppliers
>>>>> .id
>>>>> )
>>>>> )
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> This is the query as shown by db._lastsql. (Broken into chunks for
>>>>> readability)
>>>>>
>>>>> SELECT suppliers.id, suppliers.name, suppliers.address, suppliers.
>>>>> address_2, suppliers.city, suppliers.state, suppliers.zip, suppliers.
>>>>> land_line, suppliers.fax, suppliers.email,
>>>>> suppliers.website,supplier_contacts
>>>>> .id, supplier_contacts.first_name,
>>>>> supplier_contacts.middle_name,supplier_contacts
>>>>> .last_name, supplier_contacts.generation,
>>>>> supplier_contacts.email,supplier_contacts
>>>>> .mobile, supplier_contacts.land_line, supplier_contacts.fax
>>>>>
>>>>> FROM product_suppliers, suppliers
>>>>>
>>>>> LEFT JOIN supplier_contacts ON (supplier_contacts.supplier_id =suppliers
>>>>> .id)
>>>>>
>>>>> WHERE (((((product_suppliers.product_id = 340) AND
>>>>> (product_suppliers.supplier_id
>>>>> = suppliers.id)) AND (product_suppliers.is_active = 'T')) AND (
>>>>> suppliers.is_active = 'T')) AND (supplier_contacts.is_active = 'T'));
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
--
