I have a Boolean parameter called WLH where if True then it should ignore everything but if False then it should show a 0 for every craft textbox in a row that has the word "LABORER" in it. This is the expression that I am using but it doesn't seem to be doing anything. Can I get help on making it work? What am I doing wrong?
=IIF(Parameters!WLH.Value = false AND ReportItems!craft.Value LIKE "*laborer*", 0, ---main calculation for the else statement---)
Two things I see with this expression that need closer attention.
Parameters!WLH.Value = CBool("false"): The false side of the equality test needs to be converted to a boolean type with the CBool (conver to boolean) function.
ReportItems!craft.Value.IndexOf("laborer") >= 0: SSRS doesn't support LIKE in expressions but we can test for the existance of a substring in this manner. What this is doing is looking for the index (where the string "laborer" starts) in the field value and checking for a value greater than 0. This would mean that "laborer" was found while a value other than a positive integer means that the string "laborer" was not found.
I don't have SSRS installed on this machine to double check so post a comment if you still need help. Also note that IndexOf is case sensitive and that if you want to match to "Laborer" as well, you will have to do a case conversion prior to the IndexOf.
Full expression:
=IIF(Parameters!WLH.Value = CBool("false") AND ReportItems!craft.Value.IndexOf("laborer") >= 0, 0, ---main calculation for the else statement---)
EDIT: To deal with case sensitivity
Use "UCase()" to convert your field to upper case and then test only against "LABORER".
=IIF(Parameters!WLH.Value = CBool("false") AND UCase(ReportItems!craft.Value).IndexOf("LABORER") >=0, 0, ---main calculation for the else statement---)
Related
In VB6, the function Mid(string, start, [length]) has an optional parameter length. If omitted, the whole characters after the start bound will be passed.
Say I want this default behaviour only in a certain condition:
s = Mid(s, i, IIf(condition, j, TheValue)) ' What could be TheValue?
Since length is of Variant type, I tried Empty. It didn't work. Neither did -1 and Nothing.
I didn't want to duplicate to Mid call in an If-Then-Else clause or somehow else. Is this possible?
Here is a working sample with OP's s = Mid(s, i, IIf(condition, j, TheValue)) line
Option Explicit
Property Get TheValue(Optional RetVal As Variant)
TheValue = RetVal
End Property
Private Sub Form_Load()
Dim s As String
Dim i As Long
Dim j As Long
Dim condition As Boolean
s = "test test test"
i = 6: j = 3
condition = False
s = Mid(s, i, IIf(condition, j, TheValue)) '<--- this works!
Debug.Print s
End Sub
Notice how TheValue returns a "missing" Variant i.e. one which tests positive for IsMissing and can be used in place of optional parameters instead of not passing actual argument.
No such value exists. When you omit the length parameter, the compiler chooses a different path through the VBRT -- it produces different code. If you want to emulate that, you need to do the same thing, using an If-Else or similar construct to handle the two cases, like #ÉtienneLaneville suggests
As an alternative to #Étienne's solution, VB provides the IsMissing method:
Public Function Mid(p_sString As String, p_iStart As Integer, Optional p_iLength As Integer) As String
If IsMissing(p_iLength) Then
Mid = VBA.Mid(p_sString, p_iStart)
Else
Mid = VBA.Mid(p_sString, p_iStart, p_iLength)
End If
End Function
And as this wrapper method returns a string, I suggest using the String verions of Mid, which is Mid$. The later is slightly faster than the Variant version (Mid)
This was nicely explained at this site, but at the time of this posting, the request times out. Not sure if gone forever or just a temporary problem.
You could define your own Mid function:
Public Function Mid(p_sString As String, p_iStart As Integer, Optional p_iLength As Integer = -1) As String
If p_iLength < 0 Then
Mid = VBA.Mid(p_sString, p_iStart)
Else
Mid = VBA.Mid(p_sString, p_iStart, p_iLength)
End If
End Function
This should work with the code from your question, using -1 (or any negative integer) as TheValue.
In c++, std::string these optional arguments are represented by either 0 when the default effect is zero position or length or std::string::npos when it is "infinite" length. You can explicitly supply that value and get the same behaviour.
I don't know what the equivalent constant is in m/s strings [In fact it is a different function definition, so there isn't one]. The alternative would be to pass in the string length, as that is the longest length currently possible.
The ?: ternary operator is an easy way to present 2 values with a condition to choose between them.
I have an SSRS report where there is a parameter that asks the user to include records where revenue is greater than zero, or records with revenue values that are just zero.
Since the query is not a stored procedure and it is not an option to put it into a procedure, I need to use some case logic for the embedded query. I need to do this in the where clause in the end.
I am trying to do something like this:
SELECT * FROM TABLE
WHERE MY_DATE BETWEEN D_START AND D_END
AND
CASE
WHEN :REVENUE = 1 THEN REV != 0
WHEN :REVENUE = 2 THEN REV = 0
END
However, when I run this query I get the following error:
ORA-00905: missing keyword
Is what I am doing not possible? Or is there an error that someone can see and help me with?
Please help. Thanks!
UPDATE: Just to clarify, the user is passing a value of 1 or 2. And the query should filter the data according to what value is passed to it. If 1 is passed in the parameter, then filter out all revenue not equal to zero. Else if two is passed, then filter so that only records where revenue is zero is returned.
You can write it better with a bit of boolean logic:
SELECT * FROM TABLE
WHERE MY_DATE BETWEEN D_START AND D_END
AND (
(:REVENUE = 1 AND REV != 0)
OR
(:REVENUE = 2 AND REV = 0 )
)
CASE is meant to extract different values based on conditions, so you can use it to check conditions, but you need to use it as a value to check against a condition
It's not necessary to use a CASE expression to get this particular result.
But it is possible to make use of one.
The problem in the original query is that Oracle is more strict than other databases (like MySQL) in that Oracle doesn't implicitly convert a boolean expression to a value, or convert a value into boolean.
I suspect that Oracle is choking in a couple of places. The error message is only showing us one of those.
The CASE expression returns a value, and Oracle is balking that he won't evaluate the value as a boolean.
To get that value evaluated as a boolean, we could do a comparison of the value to some other value.
If we fix that, I think Oracle is still going to choke on the expression following THEN. Oracle is expecting to return a value, and it's finding a comparison, which evaluates to a boolean.
Okay, so we know the CASE expression needs to return a value, and we need to use that in a boolean expression. If we move that conditional test into the WHEN part, and specify a value to be returned in the THEN, we can compare the return from the CASE expression to another value.
(As an aside... I strongly recommend that you qualify the column references in the SQL statement. That makes the intent more clear. Looking at the statement, it looks like MY_DATE, D_START and D_END are all column references. That's perfectly valid, it just seems a bit odd to me.)
As an example, we could do something like this with the CASE expression:
SELECT t.*
FROM TABLE t
WHERE t.MY_DATE BETWEEN t.D_START AND t.D_END
AND CASE
WHEN ( :REVENUE = 1 AND t.REV != 0 ) THEN 1
WHEN ( :REVENUE = 2 AND t.REV = 0 ) THEN 1
ELSE NULL
END = 1
The parens inside the CASE aren't necessary; I just included them to highlight the part that Oracle is evaluating in a boolean context.
So, does that work? If the value passed in for :REVENUE is 2, the condition in the first WHEN won't evaluate to TRUE (the result of first comparison is guaranteed to be FALSE). The condition in the second WHEN may evaluate to TRUE (first comparison will yield TRUE, the result from second comparison will depend on the value in the REV column.)
That CASE expression is either going to return a value of 1 or NULL. (We could just as easily use a 0 or a -1, or 999 in place of NULL if we wanted.)
Once the CASE expression is evaluated, the value returned will be compared to a literal value, as if we wrote e.g. val = 1. That comparison is evaluated as boolean. If it evaluates to TRUE, the row will be returned...
To get Oracle to behave similarly to other databases (like MySQL), we would need to make the conversion from boolean to value and value to boolean explicit. We would still need the return from the CASE compared to 1, like we did above. In place of REV != 0 we could use another CASE expression. I'm not recommending this, just shown here for illustration, converting a boolean to a value.
WHERE CASE
WHEN ( :REVENUE = 1 )
THEN CASE WHEN ( t.REV != 0 ) THEN 1 ELSE NULL END
WHEN ( :REVENUE = 2 )
THEN CASE WHEN ( t.REV = 0 ) THEN 1 ELSE NULL END
ELSE
NULL
END = 1
Note that the return from the outermost CASE expression is being compared to a value, so we get a boolean (where Oracle expects a boolean.)
All of the ELSE NULL in the statements above can be omitted for an equivalent result, since that's the default when ELSE is omitted.)
Again, it's not necessary to use a CASE expression. You can get equivalent results without it. For example:
SELECT t.*
FROM TABLE t
WHERE t.MY_DATE BETWEEN t.D_START AND t.D_END
AND ( ( :REVENUE = 1 AND t.REV != 0 )
OR ( :REVENUE = 2 AND t.REV = 0 )
)
In these queries that all return an equivalent result, the CASE expression doesn't buy us anything. But in some circumstances, it can have some advantages over a regular OR, because the CASE expression stops evaluation when a condition in a WHEN clause evaluates to TRUE.
The problem is that Oracle SQL does not have the boolean data type, so you cannot have columns of type boolean, pass boolean parameters to a query, have boolean expressions etc. So they have the somewhat unnatural concept of "condition" which is something that goes into logical conditions (like in the WHERE clause). Unfortunately, when they introduced the case EXPRESSION, which can be used wherever any other expression can be used (but this excludes boolean), they DID NOT introduce a "case CONDITION" - which could be used where other conditions can be used. This omission is odd, since the code for a case condition would probably use 95% of the code for the case expression. All the more weird since PL/SQL does have the boolean type, and the case expression there works seamlessly for Booleans.
Below is the VB Expression Code for a field in my SSRS 2005 Report. This Expression Code returns only the False Part of the IIF Statement. But there is no reason why it should not return the true part as it is Referencing the correct colomn which contains data.
VB CODE
=IIF(CBOOL(Fields!OverallCPT.Value) = TRUE OR Fields!OverallCPT.Value > 0 OR Fields!OverallCPT.Value <> 0,
FORMAT((AVG(Fields!CPT_Time.Value) / 60000),"00") & ":" & FORMAT((AVG(Fields!CPT_Time.Value) mod 60000/1000),"00") ,Nothing)
Below is parts of the dataset I am using to get the data into a usable format.
SQL DATA SET CODE
Convert(Bigint,DatePart(minute,[Arrival Time]) * 60000) + Convert(Bigint,Datepart(second,[Arrival Time])*1000) AS 'CPT Time'
Why would this IIF statement return false when the Data Set returns a value for the conditions I supply in the IIF Statement.
Try changing your IIF for debugging purposes to this:
=IIF(TRUE,1,0)
If you are still getting unexpected results, I would suggest that your "true" and "false" outcomes may be in the wrong positions. (You did not specify which you intended to get back when the condition is true - the proper syntax is if condition first, then true outcome, and finally false outcome)
If not, then you have a bug in either your if condition, or in your calculations of OverallCPT. You may also want to verify that [Arrival Time] contains the value(s) you expect. Your if condition looks syntactically correct, but I can't be certain that it's what you intended it to be without more information.
I have the code like this:
var query = repository.Where(item => item.UserId == userId && item.LoanNumber != loanNumber)
which is transformed to SQL (repository is IQueryable).
loanNumber is a string parameter in the method. The problem is that checking against inequality fails (ignored). If instead of variable I use constant with its value, it works properly.
What the... ?
A number should be a NUMBER DATA TYPE, and not a string. It violates normalization rules. So please tell what are the data type of the values being compared on both sides of the expression in predicate.
If you compare similar data types, you would get correct results as you don't and should not rely on implicit conversion.
So make sure you have the correct data type.
Having setup an event tap, I'm not able to identify what modifier key was pressed given a CGEvent.
CGEventFlags flagsP;
flagsP=CGEventGetFlags(event);
NSLog(#"flags: 0x%llX",flagsP);
NSLog(#"stored: 0x%llX",kCGEventFlagMaskCommand);
if (flagsP==kCGEventFlagMaskCommand) {
NSLog(#"command pressed");
}
Given the above snippet, the first NSLog returns a different value from the second NSLog. No surprise that the conditional is never triggered when the command modifier key is pressed.
I need to identify whether command, alternate, option, control or shift are pressed for a given CGEvent. First though, I need help to understand why the above isn't working.
Thanks!
These are bit masks, which will be bitwise-ORed together into the value you receive from CGEventGetFlags (or pass when creating an event yourself).
You can't test equality here because no single bit mask will be equal to a combination of multiple bit masks. You need to test equality of a single bit.
To extract a single bit mask's value from a combined bit mask, use the bitwise-AND (&) operator. Then, compare that to the single bit mask you're interested in:
BOOL commandKeyIsPressed = (flagsP & kCGEventFlagMaskCommand) == kCGEventFlagMaskCommand;
Why both?
The & expression evaluates to the same type as its operands, which is CGEventFlags in this case, which may not fit in the size of a BOOL, which is a signed char. The == expression resolves that to 1 or 0, which is all that will fit in a BOOL.
Other solutions to that problem include negating the value twice (!!) and declaring the variable as bool or _Bool rather than Boolean or BOOL. C99's _Bool type (synonymized to bool when you include stdbool.h) forces its value to be either 1 or 0, just as the == and !! solutions do.