-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 8
Postgres dialect and PIVOT fixes surfaced by the SNPRC migration #7993
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Open
labkey-bpatel
wants to merge
11
commits into
release26.3-SNAPSHOT
Choose a base branch
from
26.3_fb_sql_server_migration_2
base: release26.3-SNAPSHOT
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Loading
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Loading
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
Open
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
11 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
828fcb0
Fix isnumeric() in boolean context on PostgreSQL
labkey-bpatel 57d9116
Fix Pivot: bind pivot values as typed parameters
labkey-bpatel 7574902
Merge remote-tracking branch 'origin/release26.3-SNAPSHOT' into 26.3_…
labkey-bpatel 93b0fc5
Make LabKey SQL week() match SQL Server numbering on PostgreSQL
labkey-bpatel a4bc7ef
Bind pivot values using the pivot column's type
labkey-bpatel e82602f
Surface pivot parse errors instead of dropping pivoted columns
labkey-bpatel f3f6e0e
Correct stale isnumeric() comments
labkey-bpatel 0e2dabc
Merge remote-tracking branch 'origin/release26.3-SNAPSHOT' into 26.3_…
labkey-bpatel c08c994
Trim comments on the Postgres dialect and PIVOT changes
labkey-bpatel 708b8b2
Add integration test for LabKey SQL week() numbering
labkey-bpatel 67de1da
Clarify testWeek comment
labkey-bpatel File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I don't know who might e using this function. It seems risky to change the return value for most of our customers to become SQL Server compatible.
Maybe we should consider weekUS() or something like that?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
maybe weekISO() as well? With week() remaining as the inconsistent pass-through?