Re: EOFetchSpecification text to number conversion

2008-07-08 Thread Lachlan Deck
On 08/07/2008, at 6:24 PM, Pierre Bernard wrote: On 7 Jul 2008, at 18:55, Chuck Hill wrote: I can't think of any. This is yet another reason to never use qualifierWithQualifierFormat. If you had used EOKeyValueQualifier, you would not have this problem. Just say "no" to magic strings.

Re: EOFetchSpecification text to number conversion

2008-07-08 Thread Pierre Bernard
On 7 Jul 2008, at 18:55, Chuck Hill wrote: I can't think of any. This is yet another reason to never use qualifierWithQualifierFormat. If you had used EOKeyValueQualifier, you would not have this problem. Just say "no" to magic strings. Does EOF again apply automatic coercion? I found

Re: EOFetchSpecification text to number conversion

2008-07-07 Thread Lachlan Deck
On 08/07/2008, at 2:55 AM, Chuck Hill wrote: On Jul 7, 2008, at 7:19 AM, Frédéric JECKER wrote: I recently changed a table primary key column from NUMBER(6) to NUMBER(12) for a legacy app. After this change I had a lot of bugs and discovered that search queries where returning zero rows. In

Re: EOFetchSpecification text to number conversion

2008-07-07 Thread Chuck Hill
On Jul 7, 2008, at 7:19 AM, Frédéric JECKER wrote: Hi, I recently changed a table primary key column from NUMBER(6) to NUMBER(12) for a legacy app. After this change I had a lot of bugs and discovered that search queries where returning zero rows. In this legacy app, a lot of fetch specifi

EOFetchSpecification text to number conversion

2008-07-07 Thread Frédéric JECKER
Hi, I recently changed a table primary key column from NUMBER(6) to NUMBER(12) for a legacy app. After this change I had a lot of bugs and discovered that search queries where returning zero rows. In this legacy app, a lot of fetch specifications are written like this : String pid="80622