feat: refs #8057 Added geoFk columns #3204
Labels
No Milestone
No Assignees
3 Participants
Notifications
Due Date
No due date set.
Dependencies
No dependencies set.
Reference: verdnatura/salix#3204
Loading…
Reference in New Issue
No description provided.
Delete Branch "8057-geoFk"
Deleting a branch is permanent. Although the deleted branch may continue to exist for a short time before it actually gets removed, it CANNOT be undone in most cases. Continue?
feat: refs #8057 Added geoFk columnsto WIP: feat: refs #8057 Added geoFk columnsWIP: feat: refs #8057 Added geoFk columnsto feat: refs #8057 Added geoFk columns@pako esta es la tarea que demanares en el redmine https://redmine.verdnatura.es/issues/8057 confirma que la implementació s'ajusta a lo que volies.
@ -0,0 +17,4 @@
JOIN postCode p ON p.townFk = t.id
AND p.`code` = c.postcode
WHERE c.id = vSelf
ORDER BY (c.city SOUNDS LIKE t.`name`) DESC
Puede ser que el cliente no tenga codigo postal. Yo pondria, en lugar de
AND p.
code
= c.postcodeen el order by pondria
ORDER BY (c.city SOUNDS LIKE t.
name
) DESC, (p.code
= c.postcode) DESC@ -0,0 +15,4 @@
FROM supplier s
JOIN town t ON t.provinceFk = s.provinceFk
JOIN postCode p ON p.townFk = t.id
AND p.`code` = s.postCode
Lo mismo que el caso anterior. Hay 1637 proveedores sin codigo postal
@ -0,0 +9,4 @@
SELECT a.id, p.geoFk
FROM address a
JOIN town t ON t.provinceFk = a.provinceFk
JOIN postCode p ON p.townFk = t.id
Lo mismo, pondria la restriccion del postcode en el order by
@ -0,0 +11,4 @@
SELECT s.id, p.geoFk
FROM supplier s
JOIN town t ON t.provinceFk = s.provinceFk
JOIN postCode p ON p.townFk = t.id
Lo mismo de antes
No has modificat el codi del final
No has cambiado el codigo del final