You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
When querying a multi-instance relation field with an :empty:/:notempty: value, the query results don’t limit the results to only the instance used in the query. The exists condition only takes into consideration the field ID, not the field instance UID.
Steps to reproduce:
clean 5.8.20 installation
create a local filesystem, a volume that uses it and an Assets field (handle assets)
create a section with an entry type that pulls in the above Assets field twice (assets and assets2)
in that section, create five entries; entries 1, 2 and 4 should have a value in the assets field; entry 3 should have a value in the assets2 field
create a template with the following code in it:
{% set results = craft.entries().section('<sectionHandle>').assets2(':empty:').all() %}
{% if results|length == 0 %}
<p>no matches</p>
{% else %}
{% for result in results %}
<p>{{ result.title }}</p>
{% endfor %}
{% endif %}
the result will be only entry 5, but it should be entries 1, 2, 4 and 5
for :notempty:, the results will be entries 1, 2, 3, 4, but it should be entry 3
if you switch to querying the assets field, the results will also be wrong
i-just
changed the title
Bugfix/multi instance relation field empty notempty querying
multi-instance relation fields; empty/notempty querying
Nov 24, 2025
This is tricky, because the content column value for relational fields could be missing for relational fields that predate Craft 5.2, even for elements with saved relations.
Looks like we solved this for RelationalFieldConditionRule::modifyQuery() by only calling BaseRelationField::existsQueryCondition() for single-instance fields; otherwise going with a condition based on getValueSql(). So I just updated BaseRelationField::queryCondition() to be more like that when dealing with :empty:/:notempty:, which is working reliably in my testing for both pre-5.2 fields and post-5.2/multi-instance fields.
The only caveat is that once a pre-5.2 field goes multi-instance, you need to resave its elements (so the content table gets populated with the relation arrays) before those queries will work as expected. But that was already the case for “has a value” and “is empty” relation field condition rules, so that’s fine.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Description
When querying a multi-instance relation field with an
:empty:/:notempty:value, the query results don’t limit the results to only the instance used in the query. The exists condition only takes into consideration the field ID, not the field instance UID.Steps to reproduce:
assets)assetsandassets2)assetsfield; entry 3 should have a value in theassets2field:notempty:, the results will be entries 1, 2, 3, 4, but it should be entry 3assetsfield, the results will also be wrongRelated issues
n/a, reported by @tommysvr