rql #34440 fix rule order so 'HAVING (X op Y)' is now parseable while 'HAVING (1+2) op Y' isn't anymore parseable [resolved]

prioritynormal
typebug
done in0.26.2
load0.200
load left0.000
closed by<not specified>

Workflow history

from state (3)to statecommentdateUser
validation pendingresolved2010/10/13 22:17 UTCsthenault
donevalidation pending

version published

2010/06/11 13:04 UTCsthenault
opendone2010/06/11 10:32 UTCsthenault

Ticket #34440 - latest update on 2010/10/13, created on 2010/06/11 by Sylvain Thenault