El 26/09/14 a les 23:32, Albert Cervera i Areny ha escrit:
2014-09-26 20:43 GMT+02:00 Cédric Krier <[email protected]>:
On 26 Sep 20:05, Jordi Esteve wrote:
On 26/09/14 19:35, Cédric Krier wrote:
On 26 Sep 18:41, Jordi Esteve wrote:
On 26/09/14 18:08, Albert Cervera i Areny wrote:
2014-09-26 17:59 GMT+02:00 M. Murray <[email protected]>:
Hello Everyone,
I have a question regarding the search query builder in the tree view. It is
the window that pops up when you click the "Filters" button/label at top
left.
How can I modify the list of fields that shows in that popup?
Just change the tree view. You can search on all the fields of the
view except those that are not searchable (usually calculated fields)
and the client also adds some special fields such as id, create and
write date and users.
Note that you can add fields to the view but make them "invisible" so
they're searchable but are not shown to the user.
Adding filter fields with a more flexible way than changing the tree view
would be a nice feature for Tryton. In my experience, the user wants to
search by a lot of criteria, no only by the fields showed in the tree view.
This requirement is very common in party and product views.
I don't know if other people has this need and if it would be very difficult
to implement in the core of Tryton.
I'm strongly against, it is a wrong user experience to not show proof of
the result of a search.
To fill this shortcoming, we have developed the searching module [1]. It
allows search records with flexible criteria in any Tryton model, subfield
search in m2o-o2m-m2m and store the criteria in a profile to be reused.
[1] https://bitbucket.org/zikzakmedia/trytond-searching
Too bad to not improve the current search syntax because all the
features you describe already exist expect for the relation field.
No, it has another more important feature: In the current filter box you can
not search if the fields are not defined in the tree view, this is the main
shortcoming that this module tries to solve.
Better to add the field! This is really stupid to over engineer with a
The problem Jordi tries to address is about the fact that he cannot
know in advance what fields the user wants to use for searching. In
fact the user doesn't know either until he has the need.
Exactly.
We discussed this in the TUB and I think several people were
interested in creating a module that allows users to define their own
tree views. That would solve the search issue too, with the advantage
that the user can check the result, which I agree is important.
Yes, flexible tree views would be a nice feature, and it can help to
solve the problem of flexible searching. But in my opinion it is better
to separate both features, they come from different needs. I have given
several reasons:
1) If there are many fields to filter the records, put all of these
fields in the same tree view will let too wider tree views.
2) If the search returns thousand records, the user either won't check
all the records in tree view. And if the search field is not in the tree
view but in the form view, the user can switch to form view and
PgDown/PgUp to check several records.
--
Jordi Esteve
Consultor Zikzakmedia SL
[email protected]
Mòbil 679 170 693
Zikzakmedia SL
St. Jaume, 9, baixos, 2a
08720 Vilafranca del Penedès
Tel 93 890 2108
