Bugfix and a Query question

[Chris Muller]

> Ok, I stumbled on this code:
> ...
> ....which wrongly assumes that detectMin: returns the size instead of

Indeed.  Another great catch Göran, thanks.

I am putting together a new release which will include this and your
other fixes.

> the
> term itself. I changed "self terms detectMin: calculateSizeBlock" to
> "(self terms collect: calculateSizeBlock) min".
> 
> ....which creates an intermediate collection, but whatever. :)

This will not affect performance at all, thanks for the consideration.

> Not
> sure
> how come this have gone unnoticed, perhaps there is no test
> exercising
> this as a conjunction.

Yes, conjunctions are part of the tests.  Due to the query
normalisation that occurs in the client, to hit this code requires a
disjunction as a parent of a conjunction, as in:

  condition1 | (condition2 & condition3)

and this is not part of the tests.  Most of the testing effort focuses
on the combinations of distinctness, sorting (ascending and
descending), and integration of local changes.

> And yes, detectSum: and is dubiously named -
> it
> is no "detect" IMHO - it should be called sum:.

I agree.

> On to my question - is it planned that where: queries could also
> operate
> on attributes that are not indexed? 

It's not planned at this time.  As much as I would like to have that, I
know no way to do it, given the robust api.  The select: requires a
block executed on the client (because domain classes are not present on
the server), so even simple #size and #at: is impossible.