[Toaster] search behaviour

[Damian, Alexandru]

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 !

Cheers,
Alex

On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 10:37 AM, Barros Pena, Belen <
belen.barros.pena at intel.com> wrote:

>
>
> On 09/07/2015 09:46, "Damian, Alexandru" <alexandru.damian at intel.com>
> 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.yoctoproject.org/pipermail/toaster/attachments/20150709/aa72e87d/attachment.html>