Hi Gil, inline ... On Feb 2, 2018 6:55 PM, "gil portenseigne" <[email protected]> wrote:
Ok then I see the limitation of my implementation ! I can't solve your example... But the existing default behaviour in performFind is "AND"ed every conditions (that is the more common way to search something in my opinion, each user input restrain the result). Yes absolutely, and perhaps we should keep the default behavior the way it is without even altering the logic. That make this design impossible without adding another key or changing global logic of performFind service, which I guess is not really what we want. Not really, you just add an if condition to check if any search groups exist, and if they do then apply the additional search logic. I think managing more complex cases (like the one you gave me) without rewriting the performFind could be too complicate, and i'd propose another way to solve such needs. If you like I can help out, but I actually think it is not too complex to apply the logic in my proposal, and you will have a permanent powerful solution where you can design complex custom search and dashboard screens. I can already imagine most of the implementation in a few lines of code, and it would help us refactor the code base. We could add the ability to put an EntityCondition in inputFields map that will be specified in a script just before calling performFind service. This entityCondition will be "AND"ed to the default ones (i already got a working patch with unit test working :) ). Interesting, let's take a look at that then, maybe you have a simpler powerful solution. Then we willl get for simple OR condition a way to do it within widget, and for more complex case, resolve it through specific script/action. Cool, I'll wait for your work, if you need extra hands for anything just holler. On 02/02/2018 15:47, Taher Alkhateeb wrote: > May I try to share a design that might be a bit more generic? Here is one > idea: > > <field name="field1" search-group="group1"><text-find/></field> > <field name="field2" search-group="group1"><text-find/></field> > <field name="field3" search-group="group2"><text-find/></field> > <field name="field4" search-group="group2"><text-find/></field> > > Then we change the find services so that each group "AND" its members and > the groups are "OR"ed together. > > So in this example the find service would have the condition: (field1 AND > field2) OR (field3 AND field4) > > I think this is simple enough but maybe provides more flexibility? > > On Feb 2, 2018 4:22 PM, "gil portenseigne" <[email protected]> > wrote: > > I'll try to improve xml widget integration adding a field like : > > <field name="field1" group-find-condition="unionKey"><text-find/></field> > > WDYT ? > > > > On 02/02/2018 14:16, gil portenseigne wrote: > > In a widget form to "OR" a condition between x fields you have to : >> >> <field name="field1"><text-find/></field> >> <field name="field1_grp"><hidden value="unionKey"/></field> >> <field name="field2"><text-find/></field> >> <field name="field2_grp"><hidden value="unionKey"/></field> >> <field name="field3"><text-find/></field> >> <field name="field3_grp"><hidden value="unionKey"/></field> >> <field name="field4"><text-find/></field> >> <field name="field4_grp"><hidden value="unionKey2"/></field> >> <field name="field5"><text-find/></field> >> <field name="field5_grp"><hidden value="unionKey2"/></field >> <field name="field6"><text-find/></field> >> <field name="field7"><text-find/></field> >> >> You'll get >> >> EntityCondition.makeCondition( >> UtilMisc.toList(field1Condition, field2Condition, field3Condition), >> EntityOperator.OR) >> >> EntityCondition.makeCondition( >> UtilMisc.toList(field4Condition, field5Condition), >> EntityOperator.OR) >> >> These will be "AND" with the others... (6 and 7) >> >> Indeed that's a bit ugly... but that do the job, and like I said, it's a >> pretty rare need. >> >> >> On 02/02/2018 12:14, Taher Alkhateeb wrote: >> >> Oh okay I understand. Well .. in that case how do you "OR" conditions in >>> the form? Do you do it selectively or do you want all "OR" or all "AND"? >>> >>> On Feb 2, 2018 1:26 PM, "gil portenseigne" <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>> Inline >>> >>>> >>>> On 02/02/2018 11:04, Taher Alkhateeb wrote: >>>> >>>> So it's not some SQL union but rather just a simple "OR" instead of >>>> "AND" >>>> >>>>> for some conditions. >>>>> >>>>> Yes it's that simple, but between different fields. >>>>> >>>> I was actually thinking of this problem recently but not only for two >>>> >>>>> options but rather multiple options. >>>>> >>>>> Nice, so we are not alone meeting this issue. This improvement allow >>>>> the >>>>> >>>> "OR" to be used between multiple (2 and more) fields conditions (even >>>> multi-select widget). I took 2 for the example, but you can defined many >>>> different groups, that can contains many fields. >>>> >>>> To be more specific, our drop-down form widgets have an attribute >>>> >>>>> "allow-multiple" or something like that which yields a list of values. >>>>> This >>>>> cannot be currently handled by performFind and the other related search >>>>> services. >>>>> >>>>> I confirm that performFind works with multi-select fields, if *no >>>>> >>>> specific >>>> operator* is set : >>>> >>>> if(UtilValidate.isNotEmpty(UtilGenerics.toList(fieldValue))){ >>>> fieldOp = EntityOperator.IN; >>>> } else { >>>> fieldOp = EntityOperator.EQUALS; >>>> } >>>> >>>> The condition will be EntityCondition.makeCondition(myField, >>>> EntityOperator.IN, selectedValues) >>>> >>>> So I think having an automatic "OR" on multiple dropdown values >>>> >>>> is an important feature to implement and I would give that a +1. >>>>> >>>>> The improvement concern OR condition between differents fields :) >>>>> >>>> Thanks ! >>>> >>>> Gil >>>> >>>> >>>> On Feb 2, 2018 11:44 AM, "gil portenseigne" < >>>> [email protected] >>>> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Yes, actually using form widget with performFind services do not offer >>>>> a >>>>> way to union two search criteria. >>>>> >>>>> Exemple : i want to find all communicationEvent that are in Bounced >>>>> status >>>>> *or* that contains something in note field. (very specific, strange, >>>>> thats >>>>> why) >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> By default all search criteria are managed in EntityCondition like : >>>>> >>>>> List<EntityCondition> allDefaultSearchCriteria = >>>>> UtilMisc.toList(criteria1Condition, criteria2Condition ...); >>>>> >>>>> The resulting final condition would result as : >>>>> EntityCondition.makeCondition(allDefaultSearchCriteria, >>>>> EntityOperator.AND) >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> With the enhancement, by regrouping two fields with field1_grp = >>>>> 'groupKey' >>>>> and field2_grp = 'groupKey' >>>>> >>>>> the following condition is added to the other default ones like : >>>>> >>>>> allDefaultSearchCriteria.add(EntityCondition.makeCondition(U >>>>> tilMisc.toList(field1Condition, field2Condition), EntityOperator.OR)); >>>>> >>>>> I hope this will be clearer. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 01/02/2018 21:07, Taher Alkhateeb wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hi, perhaps if you share the idea of how to translate it to the entity >>>>> >>>>> engine conditions then we'd be better informed? >>>>>> >>>>>> On Feb 1, 2018 6:30 PM, "gil portenseigne" < >>>>>> [email protected]> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Hello, >>>>>> >>>>>> In a customer project we met a very specific need in a search screen >>>>>> >>>>>>> that >>>>>>> offer search criteria that must unions and not intersect. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I propose this improvement in OFBIZ-10195, https://s.apache.org/sjW1 >>>>>>> but >>>>>>> i'm wondering if any of you ever met such need ? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Is that worth to be commited in the code base ? I tend to say yes, >>>>>>> but >>>>>>> i'd >>>>>>> like to hear the community out about this. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks ! >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Gil >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>
