cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Search for "not checked" checkbox

Former Member
0 Kudos
126

Hi all,

I've just encountered something weird in the WebUI. On our contacts we have created some checkboxes via the AET. By default they were added to the search parameters on the contact search.

Now, when I try to search contacts who do NOT have the flag checked, I just get them all (checked and unchecked). I debugged the search method and found out that actually the system is interpreting the "unchecked" search parameter as a blank value. Searching for a blank value means...selecting them all.

Did anyone encounter something similar and found a way to solve this?

Best regards

Tom

Accepted Solutions (1)

Accepted Solutions (1)

Former Member
0 Kudos

Tom,

The behaviour indeed is as expected. Same would occur in the BP search for the XDELE, if not SAP would have implemented a trick there.

I would suggest to check the 'trick' in the BP search or see if you can use the operand 'is not' in combination with your checkbox variable to get the correct result.

Regards,

Pieter

Former Member
0 Kudos

Hi Pieter,

Thanks for that comment.

I checked out the 'trick' for XDELE but the only thing I could find is that they added values behind the domain. Is there anything else which they did as special trick to get this working?

I've added the exact same values for my elements but weird enough on the WebUI they still appear as TRUE/FALSE in stead of Set/Not set...

regards

Former Member
0 Kudos

Tom,

I quickly debugged, and the magic appears to be happening in the interaction layer :-(.

If you set a break in CL_BUPA_IL_SEARCH_SERVICE, you can see that in method CONVERT_SELECTION_PARAM, the y/n is converted to X or space.

As the parameter was already available in the search criteria with a value, this now results in parameter I EQ ' '... Making it an explicit parameter for the query.

My bets would be on adding the 'is not', and keeping the parameter itself as it was.

Changing the handling of the interaction layer concerning AET fields doesn't sound like a good plan :-(.

Regards,

Pieter

Answers (0)