Set collection doesn't always enforce uniqueness with the Date datatype? Does the following example seem correct?Apex Test not updating parent object field based on child object formula fieldsschema.getglobaldescribe needs test classCode Coverage to Test Custom Object Public Listturn an APEX trigger into scheduled batch updateSalesforce Cookbook - Last Chatter Date - Works MOST Of The TimeIs it strange to declare a collection (Set) with the final keyword as described above?Salesforce Contracts - Testing on Contract term/End DateHaving trouble with a date/time get;set;

How long would it take for people to notice a mass disappearance?

As matter approaches a black hole, does it speed up?

How was the quadratic formula created?

Pressure inside an infinite ocean?

How wide is a neg symbol, how to get the width for alignment?

String won't reverse using reverse_copy

Make some Prime Squares!

Can a nothic's Weird Insight action discover secrets about a player character that the character doesn't know about themselves?

What is the most remote airport from the center of the city it supposedly serves?

Why was the battle set up *outside* Winterfell?

I'm in your subnets, golfing your code

Why do money exchangers give different rates to different bills?

Point of the the Dothraki's attack in GoT S8E3?

How to model the curly cable part of the phone

Verb "geeitet" in an old scientific text

Can an isometry leave entropy invariant?

Can Infinity Stones be retrieved more than once?

What property of a BJT transistor makes it an amplifier?

Why is B♯ higher than C♭ in 31-ET?

Is latino sine flexione dead?

Double or Take game

Has a commercial or military jet bi-plane ever been manufactured?

Set collection doesn't always enforce uniqueness with the Date datatype? Does the following example seem correct?

Why wasn't the Night King naked in S08E03?



Set collection doesn't always enforce uniqueness with the Date datatype? Does the following example seem correct?


Apex Test not updating parent object field based on child object formula fieldsschema.getglobaldescribe needs test classCode Coverage to Test Custom Object Public Listturn an APEX trigger into scheduled batch updateSalesforce Cookbook - Last Chatter Date - Works MOST Of The TimeIs it strange to declare a collection (Set) with the final keyword as described above?Salesforce Contracts - Testing on Contract term/End DateHaving trouble with a date/time get;set;






.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0;








5















Consider the following unit test:



@istest
public static void datetests2()
Set<Date> dts = new Set<Date>();
dts.add(DateTime.now().Date());
dts.add(DateTime.now().addHours(1).Date());
dts.add(DateTime.now().addHours(2).Date());
system.debug(dts);

system.assertEquals(1, dts.size());



The result, as I'm sure you'd expect would be that the test would pass. The debug statement showing something like:



14:49:36:002 USER_DEBUG [22]|DEBUG|2019-05-01 00:00:00


Now consider this very similar unit test:



@istest
public static void datetests()
Set<Date> dts = new Set<Date>();
dts.add(Date.valueOf(DateTime.now()));
dts.add(Date.valueOf(DateTime.now().addHours(1)));
dts.add(Date.valueOf(DateTime.now().addHours(2)));
system.debug(dts);

system.assertEquals(1, dts.size());



You would expect it to pass. Well, I did. But in fact, it fails.



14:57:10:001 FATAL_ERROR System.AssertException: Assertion Failed: Expected: 1, Actual: 3


Displaying something like:



14:57:10:001 USER_DEBUG [10]|DEBUG|2019-05-01 09:00:00, 2019-05-01 10:00:00, 2019-05-01 11:00:00


Now, part of why this may be happening is clear - While logic suggests that Date.ValueOf returns a date, it actually seems to return a DateTime (which contradicts the docs, but whatever...)



In anonymous Apex:



system.debug(Date.ValueOf(DateTime.now()));


Returns at the moment:



15:00:24:002 USER_DEBUG [1]|DEBUG|2019-05-01 10:00:00


which is a datetime



But you'd really expect Set to enforce uniqueness across dates regardless, right?



I've searched online, known issues, etc. and didn't find anything obvious. I confess this completely caught me by surprise.



So my question are:



  1. Can you reproduce this?

  2. Can anyone find/show documentation that addresses this?

  3. Does anyone know if this has always been like this, or are we seeing a change in behavior?

  4. Any other thoughts or ideas?

Note - this testing is on a fresh SFDX scratch org running Spring 19 API 45. I did run the unit tests at API 40 just to make sure it wasn't a version artifact.










share|improve this question






























    5















    Consider the following unit test:



    @istest
    public static void datetests2()
    Set<Date> dts = new Set<Date>();
    dts.add(DateTime.now().Date());
    dts.add(DateTime.now().addHours(1).Date());
    dts.add(DateTime.now().addHours(2).Date());
    system.debug(dts);

    system.assertEquals(1, dts.size());



    The result, as I'm sure you'd expect would be that the test would pass. The debug statement showing something like:



    14:49:36:002 USER_DEBUG [22]|DEBUG|2019-05-01 00:00:00


    Now consider this very similar unit test:



    @istest
    public static void datetests()
    Set<Date> dts = new Set<Date>();
    dts.add(Date.valueOf(DateTime.now()));
    dts.add(Date.valueOf(DateTime.now().addHours(1)));
    dts.add(Date.valueOf(DateTime.now().addHours(2)));
    system.debug(dts);

    system.assertEquals(1, dts.size());



    You would expect it to pass. Well, I did. But in fact, it fails.



    14:57:10:001 FATAL_ERROR System.AssertException: Assertion Failed: Expected: 1, Actual: 3


    Displaying something like:



    14:57:10:001 USER_DEBUG [10]|DEBUG|2019-05-01 09:00:00, 2019-05-01 10:00:00, 2019-05-01 11:00:00


    Now, part of why this may be happening is clear - While logic suggests that Date.ValueOf returns a date, it actually seems to return a DateTime (which contradicts the docs, but whatever...)



    In anonymous Apex:



    system.debug(Date.ValueOf(DateTime.now()));


    Returns at the moment:



    15:00:24:002 USER_DEBUG [1]|DEBUG|2019-05-01 10:00:00


    which is a datetime



    But you'd really expect Set to enforce uniqueness across dates regardless, right?



    I've searched online, known issues, etc. and didn't find anything obvious. I confess this completely caught me by surprise.



    So my question are:



    1. Can you reproduce this?

    2. Can anyone find/show documentation that addresses this?

    3. Does anyone know if this has always been like this, or are we seeing a change in behavior?

    4. Any other thoughts or ideas?

    Note - this testing is on a fresh SFDX scratch org running Spring 19 API 45. I did run the unit tests at API 40 just to make sure it wasn't a version artifact.










    share|improve this question


























      5












      5








      5








      Consider the following unit test:



      @istest
      public static void datetests2()
      Set<Date> dts = new Set<Date>();
      dts.add(DateTime.now().Date());
      dts.add(DateTime.now().addHours(1).Date());
      dts.add(DateTime.now().addHours(2).Date());
      system.debug(dts);

      system.assertEquals(1, dts.size());



      The result, as I'm sure you'd expect would be that the test would pass. The debug statement showing something like:



      14:49:36:002 USER_DEBUG [22]|DEBUG|2019-05-01 00:00:00


      Now consider this very similar unit test:



      @istest
      public static void datetests()
      Set<Date> dts = new Set<Date>();
      dts.add(Date.valueOf(DateTime.now()));
      dts.add(Date.valueOf(DateTime.now().addHours(1)));
      dts.add(Date.valueOf(DateTime.now().addHours(2)));
      system.debug(dts);

      system.assertEquals(1, dts.size());



      You would expect it to pass. Well, I did. But in fact, it fails.



      14:57:10:001 FATAL_ERROR System.AssertException: Assertion Failed: Expected: 1, Actual: 3


      Displaying something like:



      14:57:10:001 USER_DEBUG [10]|DEBUG|2019-05-01 09:00:00, 2019-05-01 10:00:00, 2019-05-01 11:00:00


      Now, part of why this may be happening is clear - While logic suggests that Date.ValueOf returns a date, it actually seems to return a DateTime (which contradicts the docs, but whatever...)



      In anonymous Apex:



      system.debug(Date.ValueOf(DateTime.now()));


      Returns at the moment:



      15:00:24:002 USER_DEBUG [1]|DEBUG|2019-05-01 10:00:00


      which is a datetime



      But you'd really expect Set to enforce uniqueness across dates regardless, right?



      I've searched online, known issues, etc. and didn't find anything obvious. I confess this completely caught me by surprise.



      So my question are:



      1. Can you reproduce this?

      2. Can anyone find/show documentation that addresses this?

      3. Does anyone know if this has always been like this, or are we seeing a change in behavior?

      4. Any other thoughts or ideas?

      Note - this testing is on a fresh SFDX scratch org running Spring 19 API 45. I did run the unit tests at API 40 just to make sure it wasn't a version artifact.










      share|improve this question
















      Consider the following unit test:



      @istest
      public static void datetests2()
      Set<Date> dts = new Set<Date>();
      dts.add(DateTime.now().Date());
      dts.add(DateTime.now().addHours(1).Date());
      dts.add(DateTime.now().addHours(2).Date());
      system.debug(dts);

      system.assertEquals(1, dts.size());



      The result, as I'm sure you'd expect would be that the test would pass. The debug statement showing something like:



      14:49:36:002 USER_DEBUG [22]|DEBUG|2019-05-01 00:00:00


      Now consider this very similar unit test:



      @istest
      public static void datetests()
      Set<Date> dts = new Set<Date>();
      dts.add(Date.valueOf(DateTime.now()));
      dts.add(Date.valueOf(DateTime.now().addHours(1)));
      dts.add(Date.valueOf(DateTime.now().addHours(2)));
      system.debug(dts);

      system.assertEquals(1, dts.size());



      You would expect it to pass. Well, I did. But in fact, it fails.



      14:57:10:001 FATAL_ERROR System.AssertException: Assertion Failed: Expected: 1, Actual: 3


      Displaying something like:



      14:57:10:001 USER_DEBUG [10]|DEBUG|2019-05-01 09:00:00, 2019-05-01 10:00:00, 2019-05-01 11:00:00


      Now, part of why this may be happening is clear - While logic suggests that Date.ValueOf returns a date, it actually seems to return a DateTime (which contradicts the docs, but whatever...)



      In anonymous Apex:



      system.debug(Date.ValueOf(DateTime.now()));


      Returns at the moment:



      15:00:24:002 USER_DEBUG [1]|DEBUG|2019-05-01 10:00:00


      which is a datetime



      But you'd really expect Set to enforce uniqueness across dates regardless, right?



      I've searched online, known issues, etc. and didn't find anything obvious. I confess this completely caught me by surprise.



      So my question are:



      1. Can you reproduce this?

      2. Can anyone find/show documentation that addresses this?

      3. Does anyone know if this has always been like this, or are we seeing a change in behavior?

      4. Any other thoughts or ideas?

      Note - this testing is on a fresh SFDX scratch org running Spring 19 API 45. I did run the unit tests at API 40 just to make sure it wasn't a version artifact.







      apex datetime date set






      share|improve this question















      share|improve this question













      share|improve this question




      share|improve this question








      edited 4 hours ago









      David Reed

      41k82463




      41k82463










      asked 4 hours ago









      kibitzerkibitzer

      2,4341324




      2,4341324




















          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          3














          UPDATE



          It seems to have been reported as a known issue here. Though the title says String.valueOf but the code sample in the details reflects what is being observed here.




          This overall behavior is impacted because of Date.valueOf and not Set, as Set is behaving as expected. I think you will need to reach out to Salesforce Support (I will try to reach out as well) to report this behavior as the Date.valueOf should not return the timestamp values at the first place at least based on the documentation.



          Details and explanation below as response to your questions.





          1. Can you reproduce this?



          Yes. I was able to reproduce the behavior you have mentioned here.





          1. Can anyone find/show documentation that addresses this?



          You may have (re)discovered a behavior (bug) here in the Date.valueOf method itself. There's a mention about the timestamp being returned in the docs (emphasis mine):




          In API version 33.0 or earlier, if you call Date.valueOf with an object that represents a Datetime, the method returns a Date value that contains the hours, minutes, and seconds.




          It just seems with the latest API version, it is behaving just like versions prior to 33.0 (as far as I can confirm)





          1. Does anyone know if this has always been like this, or are we seeing a change in behavior?



          Based on the docs and the behavior, it seems this is a change in the expected behavior.





          1. Any other thoughts or ideas?



          The behavior for Set is as expected. In your second test, you are able to add the values in the Set as they are still distinct because of the timestamp that is returned along with. And if there are distinct values, your Set contains 3 different values in that case. This definitely needs to be reported.






          share|improve this answer

























          • Regarding the behavior of set being as expected - shouldn't the fact that the Set is declared as type Date (Set<Date>) enforce uniqueness based on the Date part of the value? Intuitively, that is what I would expect...

            – kibitzer
            1 hour ago











          • Ideally yes but I think because the data in the set is still unique, it works on the data itself. And that based on the docs prior to v34.0 and the known issue, because a Date could still contain the timestamp values, the Set itself seems to be acting upon the data it contains.

            – Jayant Das
            1 hour ago











          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
          );



          );













          draft saved

          draft discarded


















          StackExchange.ready(
          function ()
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fsalesforce.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f260789%2fset-collection-doesnt-always-enforce-uniqueness-with-the-date-datatype-does-th%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









          3














          UPDATE



          It seems to have been reported as a known issue here. Though the title says String.valueOf but the code sample in the details reflects what is being observed here.




          This overall behavior is impacted because of Date.valueOf and not Set, as Set is behaving as expected. I think you will need to reach out to Salesforce Support (I will try to reach out as well) to report this behavior as the Date.valueOf should not return the timestamp values at the first place at least based on the documentation.



          Details and explanation below as response to your questions.





          1. Can you reproduce this?



          Yes. I was able to reproduce the behavior you have mentioned here.





          1. Can anyone find/show documentation that addresses this?



          You may have (re)discovered a behavior (bug) here in the Date.valueOf method itself. There's a mention about the timestamp being returned in the docs (emphasis mine):




          In API version 33.0 or earlier, if you call Date.valueOf with an object that represents a Datetime, the method returns a Date value that contains the hours, minutes, and seconds.




          It just seems with the latest API version, it is behaving just like versions prior to 33.0 (as far as I can confirm)





          1. Does anyone know if this has always been like this, or are we seeing a change in behavior?



          Based on the docs and the behavior, it seems this is a change in the expected behavior.





          1. Any other thoughts or ideas?



          The behavior for Set is as expected. In your second test, you are able to add the values in the Set as they are still distinct because of the timestamp that is returned along with. And if there are distinct values, your Set contains 3 different values in that case. This definitely needs to be reported.






          share|improve this answer

























          • Regarding the behavior of set being as expected - shouldn't the fact that the Set is declared as type Date (Set<Date>) enforce uniqueness based on the Date part of the value? Intuitively, that is what I would expect...

            – kibitzer
            1 hour ago











          • Ideally yes but I think because the data in the set is still unique, it works on the data itself. And that based on the docs prior to v34.0 and the known issue, because a Date could still contain the timestamp values, the Set itself seems to be acting upon the data it contains.

            – Jayant Das
            1 hour ago















          3














          UPDATE



          It seems to have been reported as a known issue here. Though the title says String.valueOf but the code sample in the details reflects what is being observed here.




          This overall behavior is impacted because of Date.valueOf and not Set, as Set is behaving as expected. I think you will need to reach out to Salesforce Support (I will try to reach out as well) to report this behavior as the Date.valueOf should not return the timestamp values at the first place at least based on the documentation.



          Details and explanation below as response to your questions.





          1. Can you reproduce this?



          Yes. I was able to reproduce the behavior you have mentioned here.





          1. Can anyone find/show documentation that addresses this?



          You may have (re)discovered a behavior (bug) here in the Date.valueOf method itself. There's a mention about the timestamp being returned in the docs (emphasis mine):




          In API version 33.0 or earlier, if you call Date.valueOf with an object that represents a Datetime, the method returns a Date value that contains the hours, minutes, and seconds.




          It just seems with the latest API version, it is behaving just like versions prior to 33.0 (as far as I can confirm)





          1. Does anyone know if this has always been like this, or are we seeing a change in behavior?



          Based on the docs and the behavior, it seems this is a change in the expected behavior.





          1. Any other thoughts or ideas?



          The behavior for Set is as expected. In your second test, you are able to add the values in the Set as they are still distinct because of the timestamp that is returned along with. And if there are distinct values, your Set contains 3 different values in that case. This definitely needs to be reported.






          share|improve this answer

























          • Regarding the behavior of set being as expected - shouldn't the fact that the Set is declared as type Date (Set<Date>) enforce uniqueness based on the Date part of the value? Intuitively, that is what I would expect...

            – kibitzer
            1 hour ago











          • Ideally yes but I think because the data in the set is still unique, it works on the data itself. And that based on the docs prior to v34.0 and the known issue, because a Date could still contain the timestamp values, the Set itself seems to be acting upon the data it contains.

            – Jayant Das
            1 hour ago













          3












          3








          3







          UPDATE



          It seems to have been reported as a known issue here. Though the title says String.valueOf but the code sample in the details reflects what is being observed here.




          This overall behavior is impacted because of Date.valueOf and not Set, as Set is behaving as expected. I think you will need to reach out to Salesforce Support (I will try to reach out as well) to report this behavior as the Date.valueOf should not return the timestamp values at the first place at least based on the documentation.



          Details and explanation below as response to your questions.





          1. Can you reproduce this?



          Yes. I was able to reproduce the behavior you have mentioned here.





          1. Can anyone find/show documentation that addresses this?



          You may have (re)discovered a behavior (bug) here in the Date.valueOf method itself. There's a mention about the timestamp being returned in the docs (emphasis mine):




          In API version 33.0 or earlier, if you call Date.valueOf with an object that represents a Datetime, the method returns a Date value that contains the hours, minutes, and seconds.




          It just seems with the latest API version, it is behaving just like versions prior to 33.0 (as far as I can confirm)





          1. Does anyone know if this has always been like this, or are we seeing a change in behavior?



          Based on the docs and the behavior, it seems this is a change in the expected behavior.





          1. Any other thoughts or ideas?



          The behavior for Set is as expected. In your second test, you are able to add the values in the Set as they are still distinct because of the timestamp that is returned along with. And if there are distinct values, your Set contains 3 different values in that case. This definitely needs to be reported.






          share|improve this answer















          UPDATE



          It seems to have been reported as a known issue here. Though the title says String.valueOf but the code sample in the details reflects what is being observed here.




          This overall behavior is impacted because of Date.valueOf and not Set, as Set is behaving as expected. I think you will need to reach out to Salesforce Support (I will try to reach out as well) to report this behavior as the Date.valueOf should not return the timestamp values at the first place at least based on the documentation.



          Details and explanation below as response to your questions.





          1. Can you reproduce this?



          Yes. I was able to reproduce the behavior you have mentioned here.





          1. Can anyone find/show documentation that addresses this?



          You may have (re)discovered a behavior (bug) here in the Date.valueOf method itself. There's a mention about the timestamp being returned in the docs (emphasis mine):




          In API version 33.0 or earlier, if you call Date.valueOf with an object that represents a Datetime, the method returns a Date value that contains the hours, minutes, and seconds.




          It just seems with the latest API version, it is behaving just like versions prior to 33.0 (as far as I can confirm)





          1. Does anyone know if this has always been like this, or are we seeing a change in behavior?



          Based on the docs and the behavior, it seems this is a change in the expected behavior.





          1. Any other thoughts or ideas?



          The behavior for Set is as expected. In your second test, you are able to add the values in the Set as they are still distinct because of the timestamp that is returned along with. And if there are distinct values, your Set contains 3 different values in that case. This definitely needs to be reported.







          share|improve this answer














          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer








          edited 1 hour ago

























          answered 1 hour ago









          Jayant DasJayant Das

          19.7k21331




          19.7k21331












          • Regarding the behavior of set being as expected - shouldn't the fact that the Set is declared as type Date (Set<Date>) enforce uniqueness based on the Date part of the value? Intuitively, that is what I would expect...

            – kibitzer
            1 hour ago











          • Ideally yes but I think because the data in the set is still unique, it works on the data itself. And that based on the docs prior to v34.0 and the known issue, because a Date could still contain the timestamp values, the Set itself seems to be acting upon the data it contains.

            – Jayant Das
            1 hour ago

















          • Regarding the behavior of set being as expected - shouldn't the fact that the Set is declared as type Date (Set<Date>) enforce uniqueness based on the Date part of the value? Intuitively, that is what I would expect...

            – kibitzer
            1 hour ago











          • Ideally yes but I think because the data in the set is still unique, it works on the data itself. And that based on the docs prior to v34.0 and the known issue, because a Date could still contain the timestamp values, the Set itself seems to be acting upon the data it contains.

            – Jayant Das
            1 hour ago
















          Regarding the behavior of set being as expected - shouldn't the fact that the Set is declared as type Date (Set<Date>) enforce uniqueness based on the Date part of the value? Intuitively, that is what I would expect...

          – kibitzer
          1 hour ago





          Regarding the behavior of set being as expected - shouldn't the fact that the Set is declared as type Date (Set<Date>) enforce uniqueness based on the Date part of the value? Intuitively, that is what I would expect...

          – kibitzer
          1 hour ago













          Ideally yes but I think because the data in the set is still unique, it works on the data itself. And that based on the docs prior to v34.0 and the known issue, because a Date could still contain the timestamp values, the Set itself seems to be acting upon the data it contains.

          – Jayant Das
          1 hour ago





          Ideally yes but I think because the data in the set is still unique, it works on the data itself. And that based on the docs prior to v34.0 and the known issue, because a Date could still contain the timestamp values, the Set itself seems to be acting upon the data it contains.

          – Jayant Das
          1 hour ago

















          draft saved

          draft discarded
















































          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.




          draft saved


          draft discarded














          StackExchange.ready(
          function ()
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fsalesforce.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f260789%2fset-collection-doesnt-always-enforce-uniqueness-with-the-date-datatype-does-th%23new-answer', 'question_page');

          );

          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







          Popular posts from this blog

          Log på Navigationsmenu

          Creating second map without labels using QGIS?How to lock map labels for inset map in Print Composer?How to Force the Showing of Labels of a Vector File in QGISQGIS Valmiera, Labels only show for part of polygonsRemoving duplicate point labels in QGISLabeling every feature using QGIS?Show labels for point features outside map canvasAbbreviate Road Labels in QGIS only when requiredExporting map from composer in QGIS - text labels have moved in output?How to make sure labels in qgis turn up in layout map?Writing label expression with ArcMap and If then Statement?

          Nuuk Indholdsfortegnelse Etyomologi | Historie | Geografi | Transport og infrastruktur | Politik og administration | Uddannelsesinstitutioner | Kultur | Venskabsbyer | Noter | Eksterne henvisninger | Se også | Navigationsmenuwww.sermersooq.gl64°10′N 51°45′V / 64.167°N 51.750°V / 64.167; -51.75064°10′N 51°45′V / 64.167°N 51.750°V / 64.167; -51.750DMI - KlimanormalerSalmonsen, s. 850Grønlands Naturinstitut undersøger rensdyr i Akia og Maniitsoq foråret 2008Grønlands NaturinstitutNy vej til Qinngorput indviet i dagAntallet af biler i Nuuk må begrænsesNy taxacentral mødt med demonstrationKøreplan. Rute 1, 2 og 3SnescootersporNuukNord er for storSkoler i Kommuneqarfik SermersooqAtuarfik Samuel KleinschmidtKangillinguit AtuarfiatNuussuup AtuarfiaNuuk Internationale FriskoleIlinniarfissuaq, Grønlands SeminariumLedelseÅrsberetning for 2008Kunst og arkitekturÅrsberetning for 2008Julie om naturenNuuk KunstmuseumSilamiutGrønlands Nationalmuseum og ArkivStatistisk ÅrbogGrønlands LandsbibliotekStore koncerter på stribeVandhund nummer 1.000.000Kommuneqarfik Sermersooq – MalikForsidenVenskabsbyerLyngby-Taarbæk i GrønlandArctic Business NetworkWinter Cities 2008 i NuukDagligt opdaterede satellitbilleder fra NuukområdetKommuneqarfik Sermersooqs hjemmesideTurist i NuukGrønlands Statistiks databankGrønlands Hjemmestyres valgresultaterrrWorldCat124325457671310-5