Re: Expected behaviour for absent fields

[Adrian Ashley]

Mel Hatzis wrote:

> It's inclusion in the 'index' fields is also relevant here.
> Based on your observed behaviour, I assume that it's also
> not defined as an "index" field.

That's true.

> [ The reason this is relevant is that all fields defined in
>   the "index" are assigned an empty value in the index, when
>   a PR is added to the index. Subsequent GNATS queries will
>   use the index to determine the field value, and therefore
>   a NULL value wouldn't be returned. ]

Is this a Feature?  Perhaps the fact that a field is defined in the 
index ought to have a side-effect of setting its value to "" if there is 
no default?

> Given the relatively small size of the fix-rel values, I
> suggest you might want to try adding the field to the "index"
> as a work-around. This should address the query problem you have
> and won't otherwise be much of an impact on your existing
> configuration.

I did this, and it works.  Thanks.

Adrian Ashley
Broadcom Corp.