BUG: `Having` doesn't work with function as column

See this runkit for a quick example: https://runkit.com/friend0/59e6fa9e8caff40012a0c1cd

var knex = require("knex")({client: 'pg'})
const query = knex.select().from('A').groupBy('count').having(function (){
    return this.having('1', '=', 'null')
})

console.log(query.toString());

const query1 = knex.select().from('A').groupBy('count').where(function (){
    return this.where('1', '=', 'null')
})

console.log(query1.toString());

Produces:

>>> "select * from \"A\" group by \"count\""
>>> "select * from \"A\" where (\"1\" = 'null') group by \"count\""

I expected:

>>> "select * from \"A\" group by \"count\"" having (\"1\" = 'null')
>>> "select * from \"A\" where (\"1\" = 'null') group by \"count\""

(the queries are non-sense, of course)

where accepts a function as parameter for composing complex sequences. having, it appears, also supports this (poking through the source, doesn’t seem to be documented) but doesn’t produce the query I’d expect. Am I doing something wrong, or is this a bug I should look into?

This issue appear to be long-lived, but wasn’t tagged well. https://github.com/tgriesser/knex/issues/1771

[elhigu]

@aldeed Huh, it indeed looks like an intended behavior 😮 I think it would be just easiest and safest to document current functionality of nested having for now and not touch it.

I don’t see much benefit on changing it to 'having'.

[aldeed]

@friend0 @elhigu I just ran into this issue. I was going to attempt a PR when I realized that it does work, except that you have to use where within the having callback. There is a test for it here, where you can clearly see the weirdness: https://github.com/tgriesser/knex/blob/master/test/unit/query/builder.js#L1393-L1404

I have to imagine that was an accident? If so, there is an easy fix. Change 'where' to 'having' here: https://github.com/tgriesser/knex/blob/master/src/query/compiler.js#L325

I would make this change but I’m not sure if you want to since people might be relying on the where behavior now. Could be considered a breaking change.