EntityCondition Question

[Joe Eckard]

What is the correct way to create a "having" condition that compares  
two fields? For example:

        HAVING available_to_promise_total <= minimum_stock ;

I can use:

        havingCondition =  
EntityCondition.makeCondition('availableToPromiseTotal',  
EntityOperator.LESS_THAN_EQUAL_TO,  
EntityFieldValue.makeFieldValue('minimumStock'));

which works, but I get the following warning:

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Database type warning in EntityExpr =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
In entity field  
[ProductFacilityLocationQuantityTest.availableToPromiseTotal] set the  
value passed in [org.ofbiz.entity.condition.EntityFieldValue] is not  
compatible with the Java type of the field [java.math.BigDecimal]


Is there a cleaner way to do this type of thing that I am overlooking?


-Joe

[Adrian Crum]

It is saying that one of your operator data types doesn't match the
database data type. Make sure you're comparing a BigDecimal to a BigDecimal.

-Adrian

Joe Eckard wrote:

> What is the correct way to create a "having" condition that compares two
> fields? For example:
>
>     HAVING available_to_promise_total <= minimum_stock ;
>
> I can use:
>
>     havingCondition =
> EntityCondition.makeCondition('availableToPromiseTotal',
> EntityOperator.LESS_THAN_EQUAL_TO,
> EntityFieldValue.makeFieldValue('minimumStock'));
>
> which works, but I get the following warning:
>
> =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Database type warning in EntityExpr =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
> In entity field
> [ProductFacilityLocationQuantityTest.availableToPromiseTotal] set the
> value passed in [org.ofbiz.entity.condition.EntityFieldValue] is not
> compatible with the Java type of the field [java.math.BigDecimal]
>
>
> Is there a cleaner way to do this type of thing that I am overlooking?
>
>
> -Joe

[Stephen Rufle-2]

I am not sure you need the EntityFieldValue.makeFieldValue('minimumStock').

Could it be

 havingCondition =
EntityCondition.makeCondition('availableToPromiseTotal',
EntityOperator.LESS_THAN_EQUAL_TO, 'minimumStock');

which would end up calling
org.ofbiz.entity.condition.EntityCondition.makeCondition(Object,
EntityComparisonOperator, Object)


Joe Eckard wrote:

> What is the correct way to create a "having" condition that compares
> two fields? For example:
>
>     HAVING available_to_promise_total <= minimum_stock ;
>
> I can use:
>
>     havingCondition =
> EntityCondition.makeCondition('availableToPromiseTotal',
> EntityOperator.LESS_THAN_EQUAL_TO,
> EntityFieldValue.makeFieldValue('minimumStock'));
>
> which works, but I get the following warning:
>
> =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Database type warning in EntityExpr =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
> In entity field
> [ProductFacilityLocationQuantityTest.availableToPromiseTotal] set the
> value passed in [org.ofbiz.entity.condition.EntityFieldValue] is not
> compatible with the Java type of the field [java.math.BigDecimal]
>
>
> Is there a cleaner way to do this type of thing that I am overlooking?
>
>
> -Joe

--
Stephen P Rufle
[hidden email]
H1:480-626-8022
H2:480-802-7173
Yahoo IM: stephen_rufle
AOL IM: stephen1rufle

[Joe Eckard]

Right, the warning is somewhat irrelevant - I'm attempting to compare  
a field to another field, not a value - I was just wondering if there  
was a nicer way to do it.

On Apr 13, 2009, at 5:38 PM, Adrian Crum wrote:

> It is saying that one of your operator data types doesn't match the  
> database data type. Make sure you're comparing a BigDecimal to a  
> BigDecimal.
>
> -Adrian
>
> Joe Eckard wrote:
>> What is the correct way to create a "having" condition that  
>> compares two fields? For example:
>>    HAVING available_to_promise_total <= minimum_stock ;
>> I can use:
>>    havingCondition =  
>> EntityCondition.makeCondition('availableToPromiseTotal',  
>> EntityOperator.LESS_THAN_EQUAL_TO,  
>> EntityFieldValue.makeFieldValue('minimumStock'));
>> which works, but I get the following warning:
>> =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Database type warning in EntityExpr =-=-=-=-=-=-=-
>> =-=
>> In entity field  
>> [ProductFacilityLocationQuantityTest.availableToPromiseTotal] set  
>> the value passed in [org.ofbiz.entity.condition.EntityFieldValue]  
>> is not compatible with the Java type of the field  
>> [java.math.BigDecimal]
>> Is there a cleaner way to do this type of thing that I am  
>> overlooking?
>> -Joe

[Joe Eckard]

I think in that case it will try and convert the string 'minimumStock'  
to a value.

On Apr 13, 2009, at 5:39 PM, Stephen Rufle wrote:

> I am not sure you need the  
> EntityFieldValue.makeFieldValue('minimumStock').
>
> Could it be
>
> havingCondition =
> EntityCondition.makeCondition('availableToPromiseTotal',
> EntityOperator.LESS_THAN_EQUAL_TO, 'minimumStock');
>
> which would end up calling
> org.ofbiz.entity.condition.EntityCondition.makeCondition(Object,
> EntityComparisonOperator, Object)
>
>
> Joe Eckard wrote:
>> What is the correct way to create a "having" condition that compares
>> two fields? For example:
>>
>>    HAVING available_to_promise_total <= minimum_stock ;
>>
>> I can use:
>>
>>    havingCondition =
>> EntityCondition.makeCondition('availableToPromiseTotal',
>> EntityOperator.LESS_THAN_EQUAL_TO,
>> EntityFieldValue.makeFieldValue('minimumStock'));
>>
>> which works, but I get the following warning:
>>
>> =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Database type warning in EntityExpr =-=-=-=-=-=-=-
>> =-=
>> In entity field
>> [ProductFacilityLocationQuantityTest.availableToPromiseTotal] set the
>> value passed in [org.ofbiz.entity.condition.EntityFieldValue] is not
>> compatible with the Java type of the field [java.math.BigDecimal]
>>
>>
>> Is there a cleaner way to do this type of thing that I am  
>> overlooking?
>>
>>
>> -Joe
>
> --
> Stephen P Rufle
> [hidden email]
> H1:480-626-8022
> H2:480-802-7173
> Yahoo IM: stephen_rufle
> AOL IM: stephen1rufle