action #113432
open
coordination #154768: [saga][epic][ux] State-of-art user experience for openQA
coordination #157345: [epic] Improved test reviewer user experience
[easy][beginner] Changing filters on /tests/overview queries having multiple flavors selected looses all flavors but one size:S
Added by okurz almost 3 years ago.
Updated 1 day ago.
Category:
Feature requests
- Parent task set to #157345
- Related to action #181397: Filtering for job result loses selected flavor added
- Priority changed from Normal to Low
- Target version changed from future to Ready
- Subject changed from Changing filters on /tests/overview queries having multiple flavors selected looses all flavors but one to [easy][beginner] Changing filters on /tests/overview queries having multiple flavors selected looses all flavors but one size:S
- Description updated (diff)
- Status changed from New to Workable
- Has duplicate action #181397: Filtering for job result loses selected flavor added
- Status changed from Workable to In Progress
The issue here is not the text input itself, but the way the flavors in the example are filtered.
Other filters, which support comma separation (such as module name) result in &modules=foo%2Cbar, whereas the example uses &flavor=who_cares&flavor=no_one while it should be &flavor=who_cares%2Cno_one with comma separation.
We should instead modify the flavor filter to use comma separation. I am researching how the filtering itself is written and how that would be possible. This will break existing links though. Or is this a path we don't want to take?
We should instead modify the flavor filter to use comma separation. I am researching how the filtering itself is written and how that would be possible. This will break existing links though. Or is this a path we don't want to take?
Purely from a user's point of view I would prefer if the GUI was changed to use the current filtering syntax.
livdywan wrote in #note-9:
Purely from a user's point of view I would prefer if the GUI was changed to use the current filtering syntax.
So having a comma separated input field syntax (foo,bar), but instead of "translating" it to &flavor=foo%2Cbar, it would be &flavor=foo&flavor=bar correct?
I am guessing that is possible, but it would be different from the other comma separated fields, which expand to &something=foo%2Cbar.
Both syntaxes have to be supported.
The initial link contains multiple flavor keys, but when applying the filter, it will be only one key with comma separated values.
In the backend you can support both at the same time.
tinita wrote in #note-11:
Both syntaxes have to be supported.
The initial link contains multiple flavor keys, but when applying the filter, it will be only one key with comma separated values.
In the backend you can support both at the same time.
Sounds reasonable. I'll work with this.
Also available in: Atom
PDF