Appian Community
Site
Search
Sign In/Register
Site
Search
User
DISCUSS
LEARN
SUCCESS
SUPPORT
Documentation
AppMarket
More
Cancel
I'm looking for ...
State
Not Answered
Replies
11 replies
Subscribers
7 subscribers
Views
3146 views
Users
0 members are here
Share
More
Cancel
Related Discussions
Home
»
Discussions
»
AI and Rules
Using the Appian Common Objects 7.2 rules, is it supported to nest ru
dylanf
over 11 years ago
Using the Appian Common Objects 7.2 rules, is it supported to nest
rule!APN_logicalExpressionOR
within
rule!APN_logicalExpressionAND?...
OriginalPostID-71567
OriginalPostID-71567
Discussion posts and replies are publicly visible
0
revat.anandsongkit
Appian Employee
over 11 years ago
Dylan, APN_localExpressionOR is not supported yet
Cancel
Vote Up
0
Vote Down
Sign in to reply
Verify Answer
Cancel
0
dylanf
over 11 years ago
Is there a workaround in the meantime?
Cancel
Vote Up
0
Vote Down
Sign in to reply
Verify Answer
Cancel
0
revat.anandsongkit
Appian Employee
over 11 years ago
What exactly is the use case?
Cancel
Vote Up
0
Vote Down
Sign in to reply
Verify Answer
Cancel
0
dylanf
over 11 years ago
I'm trying to create tempo reports using queryrecord() and the filters I need to use have an or() nested within an and().
Cancel
Vote Up
0
Vote Down
Sign in to reply
Verify Answer
Cancel
0
cody.smith
Appian Employee
over 11 years ago
Can you elaborate on your use case? Two possibilities: (1) Execute multiple queries and take the union() of the results (watch for performance); (2) Create another PV or CDT field with the OR logic embedded into the value's calculation.
Cancel
Vote Up
0
Vote Down
Sign in to reply
Verify Answer
Cancel
0
dylanf
over 11 years ago
I have several datetime-based pvs that I need to use as filter criteria for a common record-based query. One is an at-risk date and another is a goal date. Neither are required to be populated, but when one is, I need to evaluate if the value of now() is greater than the value of either pv. When the pv isn't populated, it should be a valid result of the query (not filtered out), but when it is, it needs to be assessed based on the value of now(). That being the case, it doesn't seem like another pv would work since it constantly needs to be evaluated based on the value of now().
Cancel
Vote Up
0
Vote Down
Sign in to reply
Verify Answer
Cancel
0
cody.smith
Appian Employee
over 11 years ago
Just so I understand, this is the kind of query you are trying to execute?
(date1 > now() OR date1 is null) AND (date2 > now() OR date2 is null)
Cancel
Vote Up
0
Vote Down
Sign in to reply
Verify Answer
Cancel
0
dylanf
over 11 years ago
Basically, yes
Cancel
Vote Up
0
Vote Down
Sign in to reply
Verify Answer
Cancel
0
cody.smith
Appian Employee
over 11 years ago
Here's a direct mapping to a query that only relies on AND operators. You'll have to create 2 new PVs, and ensure their values are always synchronized to real value.
pv!date1Filter: if(isnull(pv!date1), date(9999,1,1), pv!date1)
pv!date2Filter: if(isnull(pv!date2), date(9999,1,1), pv!date2)
filter: rf!date1Filter > now() AND rf!date2Filter > now()
Cancel
Vote Up
0
Vote Down
Sign in to reply
Verify Answer
Cancel
0
dylanf
over 11 years ago
So, 1/1/9999 is the same as null()?
Cancel
Vote Up
0
Vote Down
Sign in to reply
Verify Answer
Cancel
>