'On clause' Error with BO Group, is it obvious?

Rennur

I'm getting this error even even the column exists:

The RULE in a Process

Carrier Object's column exists in the database:

I was getting the similar 'in clause' error (another post).
All BOs in the group have the Truck ref.

tford

Trying to get my mind around the query. Haven't seen one like this before.

Seems like trying to FIND Carrier ... while using Carrier.Truck.ID as part of the EXISTS criteria does not provide proper context.

Wonder if you could break it into two less complicated queries and achieve your result??

I'm not sure exactly what you are trying to achieve or I might be able to give you a more specific suggestion.

customaware

I agree with Tom. I don't understand the context of the test between Dockets and Carrier.

However, assuming it is valid contextually, have you tried swapping....

Dockets.Truck.ID=Carrier.Truck.ID

around to

Carrier.Truck.ID around=Dockets.Truck.ID

I always find it safer to put the object I am looking for to the left of an equality test

Love the test Dockets.Docket_status IN..... How does it do that without brackets around 'Invoiced', 'Exception','Active'

Extraordinary... Learn something every day.

Rennur

Solved. Removed the .ID part
FIND Carrier WHERE EXISTS Dockets WHERE (Carrier.Truck=Dockets.Truck
The error is persistent when using these types of queries containing BO groups.

Sometimes I use these types of queries to find BOs that are based the existence of records of other BOs (Dockets, Transactions) where they are not directly linked/refd, but share a common ref attribute.

Eg. Find carriers where there are dockets created today and email them a docket report summary.

Thanks for looking into this & for the replies.

Cheers.

Rennur

I find these types of queries very useful in ref attribute query filters and non-persisted BOs etc.

Support, could it be a bug that the FIND action doesn't work when BO.ID is defined?