On 09/07/2015 10:52, "Damian, Alexandru" <[email protected]> wrote:
>Hi, > > >No, Monday is not late. We can implement it either way - just a note; in >tables, searching and sorting is disjunct, we do them independently. But >we can implement "sortbysearch" on a single field, > and this is what I'm doing. > > >For typeaheads, I have a prototype working doing this client-side. But if >this sort of behaviour is desired in the table pages, too, then it's >worth implementing it server-side as a special type > of search. > > >One more question - is it ok if I trigger the typeahead when the user >input reaches 2 characters in length ? Right now it starts on the first >character, but I think the results of searching on > one character are too wide - it matches everything ! Yes, I think that should work fine. Let me know if you see anything weird in the behaviour when you try it, but I wouldn't think so. Thanks! Belén > > >Cheers, >Alex > > >On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 10:37 AM, Barros Pena, Belen ><[email protected]> wrote: > > > >On 09/07/2015 09:46, "Damian, Alexandru" <[email protected]> >wrote: > >>Hi, >> >> >>I've started working on: >> >> >>https://bugzilla.yoctoproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=7152 > >Ah, great: thanks for taking this on, Alex. > >> >>I wonder if the behaviour described is to happen only in the typeaheads, >>or if it would also apply to the search in tables. >> >> >>Case at hand - in Project compatible layers, when you search "open", do >>you expect to see "openembedded-core" at the top of the list, before the >>layer names starting with "meta" ? Currently, it is at >> the bottom of the search results, because "o" is after "m" in >>lexicographic order. > >Refining the search behaviour would make me really happy, but I am not >sure we can simply transpose the logic from the typeaheads to the tables. >The reason is that search matching in the typeaheads should be done only >against the 'name' (layer name, recipe name or machine name) and the layer >name (so that I can search for a layer name and get a list of for example >machines provided by that layer. This seems to be working at the moment by >the way, and I think it's quite nice). > >But in the tables we match against other fields too, most significantly >the description, which is useful because it allows users to type "natural >language" queries like "small image" and get results. If a search >query >matches against something in a description, I am not sure what the correct >sorting would be. There is a also a potential conflict in the tables >between the sorting applied and any custom sorting we use for search >results. > >So the answer is that it's worth putting some time into thinking this >through. I am going to ask Tiago if he could look at it and come up with a >design proposal by Monday EOD. Would that work? Or is it too late? It's a >holiday in Brazil today, so I know he can only start looking at this >tomorrow. > >Cheers > >Belén > >> >> >>Cheers, >>Alex >> >> >>-- >>Alex Damian >>Yocto Project >> >>SSG / OTC >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >-- >Alex Damian >Yocto Project > >SSG / OTC > > > -- _______________________________________________ toaster mailing list [email protected] https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/toaster
