After that I'll start the implementation with 3 jira issues: * entities * form widget * actual implementationWhich should help facilitate any further discussion particularly around the entities and form widget.
Regards Scott On 2/12/2009, at 9:45 AM, Adrian Crum wrote:
Sounds great! -Adrian Scott Gray wrote:Hi Adrian, Thanks for taking a look.You make a good point, it would be possible in the current proposal to modify the search and save it as a new one but not to update the existing one:1. Select a saved search from the drop-down 2. Modify the search parameters and submit 3. The save text-box and submit will be presentWe could have the find form keep the persistedFormId in a hidden input and present both the drop down and the text input, something like this:Save as new search: <text-input> <save-link> Update existing search: <drop-down> <update-link>We'll also need to add something so that the form widget can tell the difference between a saved search being loaded and a saved search being modified so that the "Save as new search" doesn't show up unnecessarily.So the flow would be:1. Select a saved search from the drop-down (only the drop-down is presented) 2. Modify the parameters and submit the find form to the regular find target (persistedFormId is also submitted)3. The two fields described above are presented WDYT? Thanks Scott On 2/12/2009, at 5:11 AM, Adrian Crum wrote:From the User Interaction section:"The save search option should only be presented when the user has submitted the form as normal and will not be present when the user has chosen a previous search from the drop-down."What about when the user chose a previous search and wants to update and save some of the parameters?-Adrian Scott Gray wrote:Sure thing, I'll share the code as soon as I have some written.Also I only just realized that I completely missed linking to my actual implementation proposal: http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBIZ/Saved+Searches Sending that link out was the entire purpose of my original email :-/ and this whole time I assumed you had read it and we were discussing it, wow.Regards Scott On 1/12/2009, at 11:31 PM, Bruno Busco wrote:Sure, I will follow and review this the best I can. Just send the pointer to patches or wherever I can see the code. -Bruno 2009/12/1 Scott Gray <[email protected]>:Inline, thanks again for your comments Bruno. On 1/12/2009, at 10:21 PM, Bruno Busco wrote:Hi Scott, inline 2009/12/1 Scott Gray <[email protected]>:Hi Bruno, Thanks for sharing your thoughts, comments inline. On 1/12/2009, at 7:30 PM, Bruno Busco wrote:Hi Scott, this is on my list also. This is how I did imagine it: **UI: In the search options screenlet of the FindScreenDecorator:This is interesting, how do you plan on presenting the drop- down to the user? I placed it in the form widget itself for a couple of reasons:* So that it can be positioned within the form according to the developers preference and styled on a per form basis* Because of the dual behavior I had envisaged for the form, i.e. it is a drop down initially but if a new search is performed then it switches toa text box to allow a name to be entered and saved.* The list of saved searches to populate the drop-down list is dependenton the form target* The new form element could also be used in the future to save a draftof a partially completed formAgreed. Having it in the form widget sounds good to me.- a drop-down apperars if one or more saved search are available for that search. If the user selects one of the options all the searchfields get populated automatically.And the search results are presented at the same time right?Shouldn't the user be able to change some of the values in the fieldsbefore running the search?In this case it would be better to only fill the fields and then press"search".I guess that could be possible but it would be more difficult to implement we'd either need to send all of the parameters out for each saved search when we render the form or do an ajax call to get the parameters plus we'd need javascript to populate the form fields. I had planned on just triggering a submit when the selection in the drop-down changes (this is what SugarCRM do, not that I consider that a justification). I had been considering that in the majority of cases the saved search will meet the users needs without modification. Either way this will be possible regardless of the implementation but if I am doing the implementation I would prefer to leave it out and then we can add it later and perhaps evenmake it configurable in the form widget xsd.Not yet defined how to let the user delete a saved search.Yeah I haven't done that either, I was thinking perhaps a delete linkcouldbe presented once the user performs the search to be deleted. So theuserwould select a search from the drop-down, the search is performed, adelete link is now present next to the drop down.May be we could think to a "My saved searches" screen where the user sees all his saved searches and can edit their names, delete (or evenshare them at a later stage).That sounds like a good idea to me.- "Save this search" button is shown to let the user save the actualcontent of the search fileds.Agreed- A name field allows to set a name for the search the user is going to save. This is what will be displayed on the drop-down to select thesearch.Agreed, the plan for me was to switch the drop-down out for a text box ifa new search is performed.Agreed. This is great!- There should be the possibility to share saved search in same wayletting them being visible by all users.I think this is nice to have but a little complicated because who are we sharing it with? I doubt we'd want to share them organization widebecausethe list would quickly become too long for a drop-down to be useful. Because of the complications I had planned on leaving this until someone actually needed the functionality or someone else felt like working onit.Agreed. Lets start simple for now.- All this is only available if the user is logged in. No search saveis possible for not logger users.Agreed**Code:Adrian suggested to use userPreferences for this and I think it is agood idea.Every search screen should have a unique key that will be used tostore a preference.I did read this suggestion but I didn't feel that a single key-value pair was a good fit for the amount of information that needs to be stored.What would the name and value consist of?Agreed. This seems to complex to fit in there...Great, if you have time please do review the entities, I'd like to get as many eyes on them as possible since they tend to be difficult to re-factordown the road.I am using the userPreferences to store the screenlet collapsed status also, I did not commit yet but I will do soon. In this case thescreenlet-id is used as key.This makes sense for a UserPreference record because it is naturally aunique key and a single value.Additionally, I would like to use a saved search to automatically run a report periodically. To do this I need to pass the saved search as aparameter to a service.+1 I see a few potential uses for persisted forms/requests, savingdrafts,creating reports, possibly even the most recently viewed items featurethatwe've talked about before. I tried to create the data model with thesethings in mind.Thank you very much for sharing all this! -Bruno 2009/12/1 Scott Gray <[email protected]>:We've discussed in passing a couple of times now the possibility ofallowingusers to save their searches/finds in order to allow them to quicklyperformthe search again in the future. I'd like to get this implemented inthevery near future and since there have been a few different ideas thrown around about how that might be achieved, I've gone ahead and puttogether some implementation notes for feedback from the community.No code has been written and opinions of any nature would be greatly appreciated, since it's not a major feature I'd rather only wait a dayortwo before getting stuck in (unless of any conversations take longerthan that). Thanks Scott HotWax Media http://www.hotwaxmedia.com
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
