Why && lightning expression operator doesn't work?
According to this reference the syntax below:
<aura:if isTrue="{!and(v.isVisible,!empty(v.subjectsList))}">
should be equivalent to:
<aura:if isTrue="{!v.isVisible && !empty(v.subjectsList)}">
However, I receive the message below when I try to save the lightning component to the sandbox:
FIELD_INTEGRITY_EXCEPTION - c:SubjectSelectionView_GCC:69,34: ParseError at [row,col]:[70,34]
Message: The entity name must immediately follow the '&' in the entity reference.: Source
So, What am I missing?
lightning-aura-components
asked Jan 23 at 13:59
SauloSaulo
108110
add a comment |
According to this reference the syntax below:
<aura:if isTrue="{!and(v.isVisible,!empty(v.subjectsList))}">
should be equivalent to:
<aura:if isTrue="{!v.isVisible && !empty(v.subjectsList)}">
However, I receive the message below when I try to save the lightning component to the sandbox:
FIELD_INTEGRITY_EXCEPTION - c:SubjectSelectionView_GCC:69,34: ParseError at [row,col]:[70,34]
Message: The entity name must immediately follow the '&' in the entity reference.: Source
So, What am I missing?
lightning-aura-components
asked Jan 23 at 13:59
SauloSaulo
108110
Brought this to Salesforce Docs' attention, and they have acknowledged it to be included in the docs.
– Jayant Das
Jan 23 at 20:17
add a comment |
According to this reference the syntax below:
<aura:if isTrue="{!and(v.isVisible,!empty(v.subjectsList))}">
should be equivalent to:
<aura:if isTrue="{!v.isVisible && !empty(v.subjectsList)}">
However, I receive the message below when I try to save the lightning component to the sandbox:
FIELD_INTEGRITY_EXCEPTION - c:SubjectSelectionView_GCC:69,34: ParseError at [row,col]:[70,34]
Message: The entity name must immediately follow the '&' in the entity reference.: Source
So, What am I missing?
lightning-aura-components
asked Jan 23 at 13:59
SauloSaulo
108110
According to this reference the syntax below:
<aura:if isTrue="{!and(v.isVisible,!empty(v.subjectsList))}">
should be equivalent to:
<aura:if isTrue="{!v.isVisible && !empty(v.subjectsList)}">
However, I receive the message below when I try to save the lightning component to the sandbox:
FIELD_INTEGRITY_EXCEPTION - c:SubjectSelectionView_GCC:69,34: ParseError at [row,col]:[70,34]
Message: The entity name must immediately follow the '&' in the entity reference.: Source
So, What am I missing?
lightning-aura-components
lightning-aura-components
asked Jan 23 at 13:59
SauloSaulo
108110
asked Jan 23 at 13:59
SauloSaulo
108110
asked Jan 23 at 13:59
SauloSaulo
108110
asked Jan 23 at 13:59
SauloSaulo
108110
asked Jan 23 at 13:59
SauloSaulo
108110
108110
Brought this to Salesforce Docs' attention, and they have acknowledged it to be included in the docs.
– Jayant Das
Jan 23 at 20:17
add a comment |
Brought this to Salesforce Docs' attention, and they have acknowledged it to be included in the docs.
– Jayant Das
Jan 23 at 20:17
Brought this to Salesforce Docs' attention, and they have acknowledged it to be included in the docs.
– Jayant Das
Jan 23 at 20:17
Brought this to Salesforce Docs' attention, and they have acknowledged it to be included in the docs.
– Jayant Das
Jan 23 at 20:17
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
Instead of && you can use && (the HTML entity for &). That seems to satisfy the parser and the expression will still execute your logic correctly.
So your code will be:
<aura:if isTrue="{!v.isVisible && !empty(v.subjectsList)}">
Edit
As noted in the comments, it's probably better to use and like:
<aura:if isTrue="{!and(v.isVisible, !empty(v.subjectsList))}">
answered Jan 23 at 14:09
John TowersJohn Towers
2,2101817
5
@JayantDas No, Lightning requires it. It is not specific to the Developer Console. Go ahead and try it out in your favorite IDE. ... It's technically an oversight in the documentation, as far as I can tell. Aura has always worked this way.
– sfdcfox
Jan 23 at 14:17
1
AND function is more readable in case we have 2 parameters:<aura:if isTrue="{!and(v.isVisible, !empty(v.subjectsList))}">
– Raul
Jan 23 at 14:21
1
@JohnTowers +1 for the sharing this, a new learning today. Everyday is a new day in Salesforce.
– Jayant Das
Jan 23 at 14:25
5
Seems far preferable to just useand.
– Adrian Larson♦
Jan 23 at 16:37
1
Brought this to Salesforce Docs' attention, and they have acknowledged it to be included in the docs.
– Jayant Das
Jan 23 at 20:17
|
show 2 more comments
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "459"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fsalesforce.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f247693%2fwhy-lightning-expression-operator-doesnt-work%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
Instead of && you can use && (the HTML entity for &). That seems to satisfy the parser and the expression will still execute your logic correctly.
So your code will be:
<aura:if isTrue="{!v.isVisible && !empty(v.subjectsList)}">
Edit
As noted in the comments, it's probably better to use and like:
<aura:if isTrue="{!and(v.isVisible, !empty(v.subjectsList))}">
answered Jan 23 at 14:09
John TowersJohn Towers
2,2101817
5
@JayantDas No, Lightning requires it. It is not specific to the Developer Console. Go ahead and try it out in your favorite IDE. ... It's technically an oversight in the documentation, as far as I can tell. Aura has always worked this way.
– sfdcfox
Jan 23 at 14:17
1
AND function is more readable in case we have 2 parameters:<aura:if isTrue="{!and(v.isVisible, !empty(v.subjectsList))}">
– Raul
Jan 23 at 14:21
1
@JohnTowers +1 for the sharing this, a new learning today. Everyday is a new day in Salesforce.
– Jayant Das
Jan 23 at 14:25
5
Seems far preferable to just useand.
– Adrian Larson♦
Jan 23 at 16:37
1
Brought this to Salesforce Docs' attention, and they have acknowledged it to be included in the docs.
– Jayant Das
Jan 23 at 20:17
|
show 2 more comments
Instead of && you can use && (the HTML entity for &). That seems to satisfy the parser and the expression will still execute your logic correctly.
So your code will be:
<aura:if isTrue="{!v.isVisible && !empty(v.subjectsList)}">
Edit
As noted in the comments, it's probably better to use and like:
<aura:if isTrue="{!and(v.isVisible, !empty(v.subjectsList))}">
answered Jan 23 at 14:09
John TowersJohn Towers
2,2101817
5
@JayantDas No, Lightning requires it. It is not specific to the Developer Console. Go ahead and try it out in your favorite IDE. ... It's technically an oversight in the documentation, as far as I can tell. Aura has always worked this way.
– sfdcfox
Jan 23 at 14:17
1
AND function is more readable in case we have 2 parameters:<aura:if isTrue="{!and(v.isVisible, !empty(v.subjectsList))}">
– Raul
Jan 23 at 14:21
1
@JohnTowers +1 for the sharing this, a new learning today. Everyday is a new day in Salesforce.
– Jayant Das
Jan 23 at 14:25
5
Seems far preferable to just useand.
– Adrian Larson♦
Jan 23 at 16:37
1
Brought this to Salesforce Docs' attention, and they have acknowledged it to be included in the docs.
– Jayant Das
Jan 23 at 20:17
|
show 2 more comments
Instead of && you can use && (the HTML entity for &). That seems to satisfy the parser and the expression will still execute your logic correctly.
So your code will be:
<aura:if isTrue="{!v.isVisible && !empty(v.subjectsList)}">
Edit
As noted in the comments, it's probably better to use and like:
<aura:if isTrue="{!and(v.isVisible, !empty(v.subjectsList))}">
answered Jan 23 at 14:09
John TowersJohn Towers
2,2101817
Instead of && you can use && (the HTML entity for &). That seems to satisfy the parser and the expression will still execute your logic correctly.
So your code will be:
<aura:if isTrue="{!v.isVisible && !empty(v.subjectsList)}">
Edit
As noted in the comments, it's probably better to use and like:
<aura:if isTrue="{!and(v.isVisible, !empty(v.subjectsList))}">
answered Jan 23 at 14:09
John TowersJohn Towers
2,2101817
edited Jan 23 at 18:56
answered Jan 23 at 14:09
John TowersJohn Towers
2,2101817
answered Jan 23 at 14:09
John TowersJohn Towers
2,2101817
answered Jan 23 at 14:09
John TowersJohn Towers
2,2101817
2,2101817
5
@JayantDas No, Lightning requires it. It is not specific to the Developer Console. Go ahead and try it out in your favorite IDE. ... It's technically an oversight in the documentation, as far as I can tell. Aura has always worked this way.
– sfdcfox
Jan 23 at 14:17
1
AND function is more readable in case we have 2 parameters:<aura:if isTrue="{!and(v.isVisible, !empty(v.subjectsList))}">
– Raul
Jan 23 at 14:21
1
@JohnTowers +1 for the sharing this, a new learning today. Everyday is a new day in Salesforce.
– Jayant Das
Jan 23 at 14:25
5
Seems far preferable to just useand.
– Adrian Larson♦
Jan 23 at 16:37
1
Brought this to Salesforce Docs' attention, and they have acknowledged it to be included in the docs.
– Jayant Das
Jan 23 at 20:17
|
show 2 more comments
5
@JayantDas No, Lightning requires it. It is not specific to the Developer Console. Go ahead and try it out in your favorite IDE. ... It's technically an oversight in the documentation, as far as I can tell. Aura has always worked this way.
– sfdcfox
Jan 23 at 14:17
1
AND function is more readable in case we have 2 parameters:<aura:if isTrue="{!and(v.isVisible, !empty(v.subjectsList))}">
– Raul
Jan 23 at 14:21
1
@JohnTowers +1 for the sharing this, a new learning today. Everyday is a new day in Salesforce.
– Jayant Das
Jan 23 at 14:25
5
Seems far preferable to just useand.
– Adrian Larson♦
Jan 23 at 16:37
1
Brought this to Salesforce Docs' attention, and they have acknowledged it to be included in the docs.
– Jayant Das
Jan 23 at 20:17
5
5
@JayantDas No, Lightning requires it. It is not specific to the Developer Console. Go ahead and try it out in your favorite IDE. ... It's technically an oversight in the documentation, as far as I can tell. Aura has always worked this way.
– sfdcfox
Jan 23 at 14:17
@JayantDas No, Lightning requires it. It is not specific to the Developer Console. Go ahead and try it out in your favorite IDE. ... It's technically an oversight in the documentation, as far as I can tell. Aura has always worked this way.
– sfdcfox
Jan 23 at 14:17
1
1
AND function is more readable in case we have 2 parameters:
<aura:if isTrue="{!and(v.isVisible, !empty(v.subjectsList))}">– Raul
Jan 23 at 14:21
AND function is more readable in case we have 2 parameters:
<aura:if isTrue="{!and(v.isVisible, !empty(v.subjectsList))}">– Raul
Jan 23 at 14:21
1
1
@JohnTowers +1 for the sharing this, a new learning today. Everyday is a new day in Salesforce.
– Jayant Das
Jan 23 at 14:25
@JohnTowers +1 for the sharing this, a new learning today. Everyday is a new day in Salesforce.
– Jayant Das
Jan 23 at 14:25
5
5
Seems far preferable to just use
and.– Adrian Larson♦
Jan 23 at 16:37
Seems far preferable to just use
and.– Adrian Larson♦
Jan 23 at 16:37
1
1
Brought this to Salesforce Docs' attention, and they have acknowledged it to be included in the docs.
– Jayant Das
Jan 23 at 20:17
Brought this to Salesforce Docs' attention, and they have acknowledged it to be included in the docs.
– Jayant Das
Jan 23 at 20:17
|
show 2 more comments
Thanks for contributing an answer to Salesforce Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fsalesforce.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f247693%2fwhy-lightning-expression-operator-doesnt-work%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Brought this to Salesforce Docs' attention, and they have acknowledged it to be included in the docs.
– Jayant Das
Jan 23 at 20:17