Defect #11073
UserCustomField order_statement returns wrong output
| Status: | Closed | Start date: | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Priority: | Normal | Due date: | ||
| Assignee: |  Etienne Massip | % Done: | 0% | |
| Category: | Custom fields | |||
| Target version: | 2.1.0 | |||
| Resolution: | Fixed | Affected version: |
Description
The UserCustomField order_statement returns wrong output:
Eg:
For a user custom field named "Employee Code" (type string) the order statement is returned as follows:
>> UserCustomField.find_by_name("Employee Code").order_statement
=> "COALESCE((SELECT cv_sort.value FROM custom_values cv_sort WHERE cv_sort.customized_type='User' AND cv_sort.customized_id=users.id AND cv_sort.custom_field_id=1 LIMIT 1), '')"
Herein the value of customized_type is User, whereas in the actual database table, i.e. custom_values table, the value of customized_type for UserCustomFields is Principal (which is a superclass of User class).
For this reason, the `UserCustomField.find_by_name("Employee Code").order_statement` gives a statement which always returns empty output when used in a query.
The correct value of `UserCustomField.find_by_name("Employee Code").order_statement` should be:
>> UserCustomField.find_by_name("Employee Code").order_statement
=> "COALESCE((SELECT cv_sort.value FROM custom_values cv_sort WHERE cv_sort.customized_type='Principal' AND cv_sort.customized_id=users.id AND cv_sort.custom_field_id=1 LIMIT 1), '')"
custom_field.rb.patch 
(1.64 KB)
Related issues
Associated revisions
Use base class name as customized type to fix UserCustomField#order_statement.
Removed test line committed accidently (#11073).
History
#1
Updated by Devadatta Sahoo almost 9 years ago
- Assignee set to Jean-Philippe Lang
#2
Updated by Etienne Massip almost 9 years ago
- Assignee deleted (
Jean-Philippe Lang) - Priority changed from High to Normal
#3
Updated by Devadatta Sahoo almost 9 years ago
- File custom_field.rb.patch added
A suggested patch has been attached:
File to be patched:
app/models/custom_field.rb
#4
Updated by Etienne Massip almost 9 years ago
- Status changed from New to Confirmed
- Target version set to Candidate for next minor release
Rails stores the base class type (Principal) instead of the actual class type (User).
These RoR issues might be relevant:
https://rails.lighthouseapp.com/projects/8994/tickets/5617
https://github.com/rails/rails/issues/724 (continuation of lh 5617)
https://github.com/rails/rails/issues/617
#5
Updated by Etienne Massip almost 9 years ago
Maybe you can try to replace self.class.customized_class.name with self.class.customized_class.base_class.name?
#6
Updated by Etienne Massip almost 9 years ago
- Status changed from Confirmed to Resolved
- Assignee set to Etienne Massip
- Target version changed from Candidate for next minor release to 2.1.0
- Resolution set to Fixed
Should be fixed with r9880, thanks for the report.
I don't know if it's useful to write a test since this statement is not used in Redmine code to query User model nor where I should write it?
#7
Updated by Jean-Philippe Lang over 8 years ago
- Status changed from Resolved to Closed