rql #34440 fix rule order so 'HAVING (X op Y)' is now parseable while 'HAVING (1+2) op Y' isn't anymore parseable [resolved]
priority | normal |
---|---|
type | bug |
done in | 0.26.2 |
load | 0.200 |
load left | 0.000 |
closed by | <not specified> |
priority | normal |
---|---|
type | bug |
done in | 0.26.2 |
load | 0.200 |
load left | 0.000 |
closed by | <not specified> |