Skip to main content
Solved

IfsApp.FunctionalObjectHandling.CfEnum_FndBoolean' and 'Edm.Boolean' are not compatible. Error in custom LOV filteration

NiyomalN
Hero (Partner)
Forum|alt.badge.img+10

HI Expert,

 

I'm in the process of creating a custom LOV filtration.

 

there I added new custom LU to hold  some basic data, where you can match object level and object types, I have added a fndboolean field to set the record status as allowed or not 

 

 

Then I  Created a reference field to this LU in Functional object entity, now I'm going to add that as a lov field in the functional object page and filter based on the object level attached to the functional object (This works perfectly)

 

additionally I want to filter the LOV based on the Allowed toggle button, as soon as i add that into data source addgreget ref I'm getting the below error. 

 

 

any idea to resolve this ?

Kind Regards!

Niyo

Best answer by Navinth Bakmeedeniya

Hello ​@NiyomalN 

I assume you are testing this in 24R2 version. If so, this is due to a core defect in the metadata generation for reference type custom attributes, where Boolean LOV attributes had been incorrectly mapped as enumerations.

The issue is already fixed in the latest SU (as of now), 24R2 SU4 & onwards.

Hope this helps!

Thanks.

Navinth

cc - ​@Rukmal Fernando 

View original
LinkedIn : www.linkedin.com/in/ niyomal-nathanielsz-18112341
Did this topic help you find an answer to your question?

5 replies

Rukmal Fernando
Superhero (Employee)
Forum|alt.badge.img+16

​@NiyomalN Hi Niyomal!

I’m not sure about the Data Source AggregateRef usage, but there’s an easy way to filter LoV’s from Page Designer using OData filter syntax. If you haven’t tried that already, I’d highly recommend that approach to show only the Allowed records. See more here: 

https://docs.ifs.com/techdocs/24r2/040_tailoring/225_configuration/200_client_configurations/310_conditional_fields/100_conditional_lov/

Best regards,

Rukmal

NiyomalN
Hero (Partner)
Forum|alt.badge.img+10
  • NiyomalN
  • Author
  • Hero (Partner)
  • 102 replies
  • March 24, 2025
Rukmal Fernando wrote:

​@NiyomalN Hi Niyomal!

I’m not sure about the Data Source AggregateRef usage, but there’s an easy way to filter LoV’s from Page Designer using OData filter syntax. If you haven’t tried that already, I’d highly recommend that approach to show only the Allowed records. See more here: 

https://docs.ifs.com/techdocs/24r2/040_tailoring/225_configuration/200_client_configurations/310_conditional_fields/100_conditional_lov/

Best regards,

Rukmal

Hi Rukmal,

 

Thank you so much for the response, I tried this earlier. the problem is when I create a custom field using fndboolean  in a custom LU and when I use that custom Lu's Boolean field as a filer or in data source aggregate ref. it seems like the system is passing two different types into OData filter query .

 

I'm not sure why the types are change when referencing to a Boolean field in a custom LU.

 

OData Filtration works with other string types custom fields in custom LU without any issues.

 

Only the Boolean fields are gibing this issue.

 

Kind Regards!
Niyomal.

LinkedIn : www.linkedin.com/in/ niyomal-nathanielsz-18112341
Rukmal Fernando
Superhero (Employee)
Forum|alt.badge.img+16

​@Navinth Bakmeedeniya is this something you can advise on?

Thanks!

Rukmal 

Navinth Bakmeedeniya
1 person likes this
  • Navinth Bakmeedeniya
    Navinth Bakmeedeniya
Navinth Bakmeedeniya
Hero (Employee)
Forum|alt.badge.img+14

Hello ​@NiyomalN 

I assume you are testing this in 24R2 version. If so, this is due to a core defect in the metadata generation for reference type custom attributes, where Boolean LOV attributes had been incorrectly mapped as enumerations.

The issue is already fixed in the latest SU (as of now), 24R2 SU4 & onwards.

Hope this helps!

Thanks.

Navinth

cc - ​@Rukmal Fernando 

Rukmal Fernando
1 person likes this
  • Rukmal Fernando
    Rukmal Fernando
NiyomalN
Hero (Partner)
Forum|alt.badge.img+10
  • NiyomalN
  • Author
  • Hero (Partner)
  • 102 replies
  • March 25, 2025
Navinth Bakmeedeniya wrote:

Hello ​@NiyomalN 

I assume you are testing this in 24R2 version. If so, this is due to a core defect in the metadata generation for reference type custom attributes, where Boolean LOV attributes had been incorrectly mapped as enumerations.

The issue is already fixed in the latest SU (as of now), 24R2 SU4 & onwards.

Hope this helps!

Thanks.

Navinth

cc - ​@Rukmal Fernando 

Thank you so much ​@Navinth Bakmeedeniya  :).

 

customer is in SU3 so once we have SU4 I'll re map the changes. for the time being i added another custom LU to manipulate the Boolean and it worked.

 

once we update , I'll check this .

 

Kind Regards!
Niyomal.

LinkedIn : www.linkedin.com/in/ niyomal-nathanielsz-18112341
Rukmal Fernando
Navinth Bakmeedeniya
2 people like this
  • Rukmal Fernando
    Rukmal Fernando
  • Navinth Bakmeedeniya
    Navinth Bakmeedeniya

Reply


Terms & ConditionsCookie settings

Cookie policy

We use cookies to enhance and personalize your experience. If you accept you agree to our full cookie policy. Learn more about our cookies.

 
Cookie settings