I'm querying for test results which are associated with any test set that has a particular tag.
However, this query does not work:
(TestSet.Tags.Name = "foo")
What does work is:
(TestSet.Tags.Name contains "foo")
I would think the first query should work if the second one returns matches with the tag "foo". I presume this is a bug?
I can get around this problem by using the second query, but of course the problem is that this can match a tag named "foo2" as well, so my query can have extra results (potentially many more) and I have to filter them out. Additionally, now I need to have my query fetch the "Tags" as well, so every result I get back is larger because of it.
Yes, as user1195996 suggested this feels like a bug. Your same queries work as expected against defect or user stories. Please work with Rally Support on this issue so we can work to correct it.
Related
I would like to know if it is possible to do a search like this:
"give me all objects where description has more than 1 value"
The short answer is no. At least not from a single LDAP Query without somehow parsing the results.
I know of a tool that will provide those results however it has not been updated in a while but last time I used it, it worked.
Below is simplified example of my data. As you can see – there are just two rows here
So I run below and suddenly getting unexpected result
What I expected was something like:
Why am I getting wrong result?
Moreover, when I run below – I am getting only one row. Why second row with id=1 is not showing??
Is there BigQuery bug or what?
Disclaimer: I was asked exactly this type of question few times offline (outside of StackOverflow) and recently saw very same question on SO (I can't understand this BigQuery magic. find string with LIKE) but unfortunately it was deleted so I decided to Post this on my own
The reason for GROUP BY not grouping those two rows is that str field in those rows are actually different. Unfortunately, BigQuery Web UI collapses spaces in result panel when it is in Table mode. To see real/original values you can switch to JSON mode, as below
Same reason is for unexpected result for use of LIKE
As of how to deal with this? It depends!
For example you can kind of normalize your strings by suppressing spaces by yourself as it is shown below
P.S. In our internal tools – we just fixed the issue with suppressed spaces and just simply show all spaces:
I have created my first Rails Rake task which imports some data. It uses the URL to identify if the page needs to be updated or inserted. I am however having som really weird issue with some records being inserted multiple times instead, instead of just being updated.
My query looks like this:
existingCompany = Company.find_by_external_link(company.external_link)
I then look at
existingCompany.nil?
to see if the record needs to be created or updated. Some of the companies are not found by active record even though the external link exists. I have tried to print out the url and then look in the database (I use PostgreSQL) and it finds it correctly. The even weirder thing is that it doesn't happen to all records, only a few of them.
Anyone got an idea what might make ActiveRecord believe that a record doesn't exist?
You don't give a lot of information, but a couple of things to try:
How is company.external_link getting set? Either in the debugger or
a simple puts can tell you if it is what you think. For example
"http://www.ups.com/" != "https://www.ups.com/" !=
"http://www.ups.com"
You may need to be consistant on capitalization
or removing white space in company.external_link (.downcase, .strip)
Another thing to keep in mind is ActiveRecord creates a method Company.find_or_create_by_external_link which will do this in one step
This is the filter I am using:
(&(ObjectClass=user)(employeeID=*)(mail=*))
And I get back what I need. However, there are way too many results return and so I want to only get those users whose sn starts with an 'a'.
So, I changed my filter to:
(&(ObjectClass=user)(employeeID=*)(mail=*)(sn=a*))
But there is no change in the results from the orignal filter.
What am I doing wrong here?
The implication of that is that the filter (sn=a*) doesn't actually work, which is hard to believe. You could try putting it first in the filter string, but I think it's much more likely that you aren't executing the code you think you're executing.
I've run into an issue with an autocomplete field I'm working on. The field I'm working with is composed of the form "<NAME> (<CODE>)". When a user starts typing in text, I want to display any results that match either NAME or CODE.
For example, if this list contains items and their codes, like "Personal Computer (PC)", then I'd want the list to pop up that row if the user types "P", "PC", "Per", etc.
I've gotten this to work fine in SQLite with a query like this:
SELECT *
FROM table
WHERE name LIKE "?%" or code LIKE "?%"
However, the problem I'm running into now is how to best sort the results that come back from this. For example, If someone enters "PC", I want "Personal Computer (PC)" to be the first result. However, if there's another row (you'll have to bear with me as this is contrived) "PC Case (301)", then there's no simple ordering I can do on the results to ensure that the best match appears first. Ordering by name and code both returns PC Case first.
I want a query where it returns the best match first, rather than items in alphabetical order. Is there such a function I can use in SQLite to get this, or should I return the results and then mess with the order in the code?
If it helps any, I'm using this for FilterQueryProviders on Android.
Yes, you should implement FullTextSearch and the use MATCH in your queries.
Ref: http://dotnetperls.com/sqlite-fts3
This is a long time after the fact, but I've solved my dilemma without having to resort to crazy sorting tactics.
Basically, once an autocomplete gets complex enough, you need to implement your own CursorAdapter (implementing FilterQueryProvider) then override convertToString(). That way, you end up being able to do complex queries via runQuery(), but can then convert it to readable form in convertToString().