Unlock a world of possibilities! Login now and discover the exclusive benefits awaiting you.
Hi All
Is there a difference between:
Count({<OrderValue={"<>0"} >}SalesOrderNumber)
and
Count({<OrderValue-={0} >}SalesOrderNumber)
I am not getting consistent results, depending on where I use either one.
Thanks
Both are giving correct results as they have made for.
If depends upon the requirement which need to be used.
if you don't want to consider 0 as well as NULL
then you should go for
Count({<F1={"<>0"}>}F2)
if you need to exclude only 0 then you should go for
Count({<F1-={0}>})F2)
Hope this helps.
Thanks
Nilaksh Mahajan
The Count({<OrderValue-={0} >}SalesOrderNumber)
is the same as
Count({<OrderValue = {'*'} - {'0'}>} SalesOrderNumber)
(include everything *, but exclude 0; or include everything except 0).
Besides without '' the formula will be underlined as if it's an error.
While using Count({<OrderValue={"<>0"} >}SalesOrderNumber) you exclude 0 and null values from the list of possible OrderValue values.
Please check the simple attachment file.
for your reply, however it is not what I had in mind.
Here is a sample of where the test fails. There are 11 members of F1. One of F2 is NULL and one of F2 is 0.
Seems that the expression : Count({<F1={"<>0"}>}F2) returns the correct value.
My bad. the description of values in fields F1 and F2 was reversed.
Here is how it should read:
There are 11 members of F2. One of F1 is NULL and one of F1 is 0.
Thanks
Both are giving correct results as they have made for.
If depends upon the requirement which need to be used.
if you don't want to consider 0 as well as NULL
then you should go for
Count({<F1={"<>0"}>}F2)
if you need to exclude only 0 then you should go for
Count({<F1-={0}>})F2)
Hope this helps.
Thanks
Nilaksh Mahajan
Thanks Nilaksh
It indeed seems this way.
The modifier {<F1={"<>0"}>} indeed removes both 0 and NULL.
It is counter intuitive though.