On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 9:35 AM, James Tait <[email protected]> wrote: > There are a couple of other approaches we could take to this: > [option 1] > > - we only add architecture:all to other architecture queries > * Queries that don't specify an architecture will not filter on > architecture, and will get everything. > * Queries that specify "architecture:all" will return just those > packages with architecture:all. > * Queries that specify a recognised architecture will get those > packages that list that architecture PLUS those packages with > architecture:all. > * Queries will only need to send a single value in the architecture > header to see the full list of packages available to them. > [option 3] > > Of these options, I think I prefer the second - package details will > still be explicit (i.e. will still contain "architecture": ["all"]
Me too. That was the implementation I assumed when I sent the email, and sorry for not being more explicit but I haven't imaged the other 2 option so that's why I didn't list them. >> Currently the search results do not return the arch info, so a >> searches with no arch will return information that will require a >> new query per result to be able to show archs to clients, so once >> we change the behavior when no arch is sent in search queries, we >> should be returning the arch in the result. > > Would we add this to *all* search results, or just those where no > architecture was specified in the query? It's probably redundant if > the query specified an architecture, but it's inconsistent if we leave > it out. I was thinking on this as well, and I wanted Alejandro's opinion on this one. I think I prefer to return the arch only in searches that do not specify one. Thanks! -- Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-appstore-developers Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-appstore-developers More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
