[Toaster] search behaviour

[Barros Pena, Belen]

On 09/07/2015 10:52, "Damian, Alexandru" <alexandru.damian at intel.com>
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
><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 
>
>
>