Le Thu, 30 Sep 2010 19:48:11 +0200, Cédric Krier <[email protected]> a écrit :
> On 30/09/10 19:31 +0200, Mathias Behrle wrote: > > > > > > 2) Will we lose all those differentiated operators like > > > > > > 'Begins with', 'Is'. etc.? > > > > > > > > > > > > The ideal solution for me would be to have this > > > > > > one-liner-interface (provided it can be done in a > > > > > > sufficient sophisticated way) on top of the form with all > > > > > > other search fields (the well known search interface until > > > > > > now) collapsed. If the search fields could be shown > > > > > > (extended) with a click on an arrow just besides the > > > > > > one-liner-interface all users could have their prefered > > > > > > interface. > > > > > > > > > > The goals is to get rid of the current search view because it > > > > > is not powerfull enough, it takes too much place and it is > > > > > hard to extend it (like having full text search). > > > > > > > > The current proposal loses some differentiated operators, so it > > > > is less powerful. It wouldn't take any place if being collapsed > > > > at first sight. Full text search could be only for the > > > > one-liner. > > > > > > There will not be less operators. Every operators in trytond will > > > be available which means there will be more operators. > > > > Of which operators are you talking? Those of > > http://doc.tryton.org/1.6/trytond/doc/topics/domain.html? > > Those don't contain operators like 'start with', 'end with'. > > 'start with' = ilike '...%' > 'end with'= ilike '%...' > > > > > > In fact I readed the code and > > > Bertrand did not follow what we talked. He uses only "ilike" > > > operators but this must be only the default one and operators > > > could be define after the field. > > > > Ok, sounds much better to me, but I still don't know, how you would > > want to name those operators e.g. 'start with' or 'end with'. It > > will be difficult to find intuitive descriptors while keeping > > simplicity for the user. Perhaps a list of possible operators could > > open via completion after inserting a field? > > Most of operators are simple =, <, > etc. > ilike is the default > in will be the default when the value is a list > child_of will need to be defined (but I'm not sure it is useful in > UI). I don't think operators are a difficult problem (at least technically). The biggest obstacle a the moment is to handle correctly the mix of AND/OR and parenthesis while allowing also the user to not put them (I.E. search like "field:value other field: other value"). -- Bertrand Chenal B2CK SPRL Rue de Rotterdam, 4 4000 Liège Belgium Tel: +32 472 54 46 59 Email: [email protected] Website: http://www.b2ck.com/ -- [email protected] mailing list
