On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 5:53 PM, Barros Pena, Belen < [email protected]> wrote:
> > > On 14/07/2015 16:01, "Damian, Alexandru" <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > >Hi, > > > > > >I updated the typeaheads for the project page, using this sort, > > Sorry, Alex, I am not sure I follow. Which sort are you referring to when > you say "this sort"? > This sort the one described in the bug; that is: - entries with names that start with the typed string come any other entries - second criteria, the entries are sorted in alphabetical order e.g.: if you type "bus" in recipes, you'll get: busybox # on first position, because the name starts with "bus" at-spi2-core # on second position, "bus" matches something in the description dbus-wait # "bus" is in the name, but the name doesn't start with the "bus" prefix, and it is sorted alphabetically after "at-spi2-core" > > >and using the minimum length for typeaheads at two characters. > > This is fine, as far as I can tell. > > > > > > >The branch was pushed here: > > > >adamian/20150708_sorting > > > > > http://git.yoctoproject.org/cgit/cgit.cgi/poky-contrib/log/?h=adamian/2015 > >0708_sorting > > > > > >I am not sure if this is the right solution, pending feedback from Tiago, > >but it gives you guys a chance to see how it feels. > > I've tested the branch, but the results in the typeahead are not the ones > I would have expected to see. I think I am missing some information to > really understand what's going on: > > > 1. Which fields are being searched for the typeaheads? > All the fields that get searched is a regular way. > 2. How are results currently sorted in the typeaheads? > Using the above algorithm. > > Thanks! > > Belén > > > > > > >Cheers, > > > >Alex > > > > > >On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 10:55 AM, Barros Pena, Belen > ><[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > >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 > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >-- > >Alex Damian > >Yocto Project > > > >SSG / OTC > > > > > > > > > > -- Alex Damian Yocto Project SSG / OTC
-- _______________________________________________ toaster mailing list [email protected] https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/toaster
