 |
|
We are using Kendo UI components for an MVC application. Kendo's CSS has textbox width set as 12.4em. I want it to be 100%. So, in jQuery, I was setting it to 100%. But when the control is rendered, in the source I see it to be 110.4%.
After just looking at the screen for sometime (didn't knew what to do), I asked my colleague for help. And we both were confused. We then created a 100px wide div and added a textbox to it. Then, same jQuery function was called to change the width to 100% instead of default 12.4em. It still showed up as 110.4%.
Time not being on my side, I changed width in jQuery function to 89.6% and then it rendered as 100%.
We are still looking for a good detective to help solve the mysterious 10.4%.
"It is easy to decipher extraterrestrial signals after deciphering Javascript and VB6 themselves.", ISanti[ ^]
|
|
|
|
|
The first thing I'd check would be the box-sizing:
box-sizing - CSS | MDN[^]
Box Sizing | CSS-Tricks[^]
The default is content-box, which means any padding and borders are added to the specified width.
If you change it to border-box, the width includes the padding and borders, which makes it much easier to reason about the layout.
html {
box-sizing: border-box;
}
*, *:before, *:after {
box-sizing: inherit;
}
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
Perfect! That's what it was. Please share your bank account details for payment. 
"It is easy to decipher extraterrestrial signals after deciphering Javascript and VB6 themselves.", ISanti[ ^]
|
|
|
|
|
Nicely done.
#SupportHeForShe
Government can give you nothing but what it takes from somebody else. A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take everything you've got, including your freedom.-Ezra Taft Benson
You must accept 1 of 2 basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe or we are not alone. Either way, the implications are staggering!-Wernher von Braun
|
|
|
|
|
Haven't used Kendo before but I've had issues with em and Bootstrap before because it's cumulative which is why I always use rem now if I can.
|
|
|
|
|
Kendo loves em because ...KLM....
"It is easy to decipher extraterrestrial signals after deciphering Javascript and VB6 themselves.", ISanti[ ^]
|
|
|
|
|
You'd think so. Except in SQL
We had a query:
Select count(*)
From TableOne
which returned, say, 500,000 records.
Next we added
Select count(*)
From TableOne
Left Join TableTwo On TableTwo.TableTwoID = TableOne.TableTwoID
Where TableTwo.TableTwoID is null or TableTwo.StringColumn <> 'value'
We're trying to find the number of records in TableOne which, when joined with TableTwo, either have no corresponding TableTwo row or the corresponding TableTwo row is not 'value'.
TableTwo.StringColumn is nullable.
The result? Adding the join resulted in 25K records. It should have been over 490K records.
The issue?
TableTwo.StringColumn <> 'value'
This comparison returns false if TableTwo.StringColumn is null. So one needs to use
IsNull(TableTwo.StringColumn, '') <> 'value'
to get the correct result.
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, and it is pretty correct.
NULL is not defined and can therefore not be compared to a value. Also not for nuallable type in c#.
|
|
|
|
|
Null most certainly does not equal a valid string value, right?
I never realised SQL could be so Javaesque 
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
It gets Dali-esque as well from time to time...
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
OriginalGriff wrote: Dali-esque
Surrealistic? or womenizer? 
M.D.V.
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
Nelek wrote: womenizer?
My experience is that SQL lacks, er, discrimination in who it molests.
Software Zen: delete this;
|
|
|
|
|
...except there's an "or" in there: logically, it shouldn't matter: if it's null, at least one of the conditions is true.
I have a feeling that "null=string" evaluates to null, and then "field is null" evaluates to Boolean, then "boolean or null" evaluates to null, which is why it doesn't work. But that's somewhat abstruse.
Which server is this: is it SQL Server or MySQL... or perhaps something else?
|
|
|
|
|
But the IS NULL check is made on TableTwo.TableTwoID
While string compare is made with TableTwo.StringColumn
So I see no incorrect handling, but of course it is not very intuitiv.
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah - you're right. Hadn't had coffee yet. LOL!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dan Sutton wrote: I have a feeling that "null=string" evaluates to null, and then "field is null" evaluates to Boolean, then "boolean or null" evaluates to null, which is why it doesn't work.
Pretty much, but it depends on the operator and the boolean value. If it's possible to short-circuit the operator, it doesn't matter if one condition is Null.
AND | True | False | Null
----------------------------
True | True | False | Null
False | False | False | False
Null | Null | False | Null
OR | True | False | Null
----------------------------
True | True | True | True
False | True | False | Null
Null | True | Null | Null
It's sometimes easier to think of Null as "unknown".
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
I know: I failed to see first time around that the comparisons were made on separate columns. Coffee. It's a mandatory component first thing in the morning. Of course, not having had any, I failed to realise that, too!
|
|
|
|
|
Exactly - in Codd's original work (which defined Relational Database Management Systems), this is referred to as null progagation.
Interesting, in The Relational Model for Database Management Systems V2, he introduced two null values one indicates the value is unknown and inapplicable (like the null behaviour you described), and the other indicating the value is unknown and applicable (which would give the behaviour Chris was expecting).
Sadly, to the best of my knowledge, no-one bothered pursuing any of the good ideas in there.
"If you don't fail at least 90 percent of the time, you're not aiming high enough."
Alan Kay.
|
|
|
|
|
It's simple three-valued Boolean logic - what's the problem?!
Chris Maunder wrote: IsNull(TableTwo.StringColumn, '') <> 'value'
Except that's not SARGabale.
WHERE
TableTwo.StringColumn Is Null
Or
TableTwo.StringColumn != 'value'
(You can remove TableTwo.TableTwoID Is Null, because if that's true, TableTwo.StringColumn will also be Null.)
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
Richard Deeming wrote: It's simple three-valued Boolean logic
True, False, and Surprise.
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
True, False, and FileNotFound. 
What Is Truth? - The Daily WTF[^]
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
And avoid "!=" in SQL
|
|
|
|
|
Only if you're anal about standards-compliance. 
Databases that support both != and <>:
- MySQL 5.1
- PostgreSQL 8.3
- SQLite
- Oracle 10g
- Microsoft SQL Server 2000/2005/2008/2012/2016
- IBM Informix Dynamic Server 10
- InterBase/Firebird
- Apache Derby 10.6
- Sybase Adaptive Server Enterprise 11.0
Databases that support the ANSI standard operator, exclusively:
- IBM DB2 UDB 9.5
- Microsoft Access 2010
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
|
0x01AA wrote: BTW: Have some Problems to seriously translate "if you're anal about compliance"
anal - Wiktionary[^] - definition #3: of a person, compulsive and stubborn, obsessed with neatness and accuracy
Synonyms: fussy, pernickety, picky
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
Thank you for help me learning English. What such a insignifican word like "about" can change everything
Thank you
Bruno
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Maunder wrote: We're trying to find the number of records in TableOne which, when joined with TableTwo, either have no corresponding TableTwo row or the corresponding TableTwo row is not 'value'.
Either I've misunderstood your requirement, or that query isn't technically correct.
The query will find the records in TableOne which don't have any corresponding rows in TableTwo, and the records in TableOne which have at least one corresponding record in TableTwo where StringColumn is Null or not equal to 'value'. If there are multiple matching rows in TableTwo, then the rows from TableOne will be repeated.
Based on the description, I'd have thought something like this would be a better fit:
SELECT Count(1)
FROM TableOne
WHERE Not Exists
(
SELECT 1
FROM TableTwo
WHERE TableTwo.TableTwoID = TableOne.TableTwoID
And TableTwo.StringColumn = 'value'
)
That finds all the rows in TableOne which don't have a corresponding row in TableTwo with StringColumn set to 'value'.
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
I think this version reads cleaner (and without the quirks), but I'd be willing to bet the non-sub select version would run quicker.
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
Jeremy Falcon wrote: would run quicker
Indeed.
#SupportHeForShe
Government can give you nothing but what it takes from somebody else. A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take everything you've got, including your freedom.-Ezra Taft Benson
You must accept 1 of 2 basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe or we are not alone. Either way, the implications are staggering!-Wernher von Braun
|
|
|
|
|
|
I feel ya man. NULL has always been a special case though. It's the bastard stepchild of values. Isn't technology fun?
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
This proves SQL is not a real programming language.
#SupportHeForShe
Government can give you nothing but what it takes from somebody else. A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take everything you've got, including your freedom.-Ezra Taft Benson
You must accept 1 of 2 basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe or we are not alone. Either way, the implications are staggering!-Wernher von Braun
|
|
|
|
|
Au contraire. It's the perfect language. Job security forever.
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
LOL. Especially when you have your own company!
#SupportHeForShe
Government can give you nothing but what it takes from somebody else. A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take everything you've got, including your freedom.-Ezra Taft Benson
You must accept 1 of 2 basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe or we are not alone. Either way, the implications are staggering!-Wernher von Braun
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: Job security forever
Indeed. Writing script, backup,... It's boring but secure.
|
|
|
|
|
So is prostitution... but ya know... 
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
|
Some are... so I'm told. 
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
They don't all "enjoy" it. It's a job. Indeed, prostitutes go same-sex for their personal one-on-ones because opposite-sex has lost all appeal due to the "job".
#SupportHeForShe
Government can give you nothing but what it takes from somebody else. A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take everything you've got, including your freedom.-Ezra Taft Benson
You must accept 1 of 2 basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe or we are not alone. Either way, the implications are staggering!-Wernher von Braun
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry, You failed the interview. He'll call you next time. 
|
|
|
|
|
So wait, you're saying I can't be a prostitute? Why? Because I'm a guy? That's discrimination.
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
Are you saying, Sql Dev's = prostitute?
|
|
|
|
|
Yes. Everyone knows you have go through prostitute training to get certified. You just finding this out? You may wanna talk to your MS rep.
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
Guys... this is not the soapbox
M.D.V.
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
It's also not the lounge.
#SupportHeForShe
Government can give you nothing but what it takes from somebody else. A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take everything you've got, including your freedom.-Ezra Taft Benson
You must accept 1 of 2 basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe or we are not alone. Either way, the implications are staggering!-Wernher von Braun
|
|
|
|
|
Like everything else in programming, it depends. In this case it depends on the SQL ansi_nulls setting. If this is a statement inside a SQL stored procedure, view, etc the ansi_nulls setting is burned into the object when it is created. If this is an ad-hoc statement then the ansi_nulls setting in effect for the SQL connection the statement is executed against is used.
If you want null <> 'value' to return true, you could just set ansi_nulls off. Not that I would recommend doing that...
|
|
|
|
|
txmrm wrote: Not that I would recommend doing that...
Especially as it's deprecated, and likely to be removed:
In a future version of SQL Server, ANSI_NULLS will always be ON and any applications that explicitly set the option to OFF will generate an error. Avoid using this feature in new development work, and plan to modify applications that currently use this feature.
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
It may be weird, but it's nothing new...
I learned SQL on mainframe, and the first thing we had to memorize about NULL is that it can not stand of either side of any of the comparison operators (=, <, >, <>)...
Skipper: We'll fix it.
Alex: Fix it? How you gonna fix this?
Skipper: Grit, spit and a whole lotta duct tape.
|
|
|
|
|
The SQL standards don't define how NULL should behave. What you found is accurate for one SQL dialect but may not be accurate for another. This is actually one of the biggest challenges when changing RDBMS vendors.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
