On Feb 6, 2008 11:02 AM, Robins Tharakan <tharakan@gmail.com> wrote:
> > ... snip ...
> Sure ! Points that I'll take into account from now on.
>
>
> > One other thing I noticed that should be fixed in a new patch - if you
> > sort ascending on a column, and then sort descending, it will add
> > both. It should remove the ascending and replace it with the
> > descending sort.
>
> True... and one more thing that I was working on (when I responded to
> Guillaume the other day) was that if a person does an 'exclude by selection'
> on a field with a value = 10, we simply put a [WHERE] value <> 10 filter...
> however I think this is incomplete.
>
> instead of
> WHERE value <> 10
>
> we should rather put
>
> WHERE (value <> 10 OR value IS NULL)
> Or
> WHERE (value IS DISTINCT FROM 10)
>
> This is because as per the UI, the user does not want value 10, but he still
> would want a NULL value in the records.
Yes, thats a good point. I look forward to seeing the patch ;-)
cheers, Dave.
