Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Search for sources in admin interface doesn't include volume #831

Closed
mrustow opened this issue May 2, 2022 · 5 comments
Closed

Search for sources in admin interface doesn't include volume #831

mrustow opened this issue May 2, 2022 · 5 comments
Assignees
Labels
🐛 bug Something isn't working

Comments

@mrustow
Copy link

mrustow commented May 2, 2022

While attempting to correlate some Goitein editions with the correct "volume" of unpublished transcriptions (e.g., changing "S. D. Goitein, Unpublished transcriptions" to "S. D. Goitein, Unpublished transcriptions. (ENA)," I noticed two issues:

  1. It's not possible to search with the full string
  2. The dropdown list isn't alphabetized.

This works fine:
Screen Shot 2022-05-02 at 4 43 51 PM

This still works fine:
Screen Shot 2022-05-02 at 4 43 28 PM

Add the period and it no longer works:
Screen Shot 2022-05-02 at 4 43 19 PM

Delete the period and add the desired "volume" name and it no longer works:
Screen Shot 2022-05-02 at 4 43 10 PM

And it would be superb if these were alphabetized.
Screen Shot 2022-05-02 at 4 43 00 PM

Thanks!

@mrustow mrustow added the 🐛 bug Something isn't working label May 2, 2022
@rlskoeser rlskoeser self-assigned this May 10, 2022
@rlskoeser
Copy link
Contributor

Following up on this:

  • The source volume field was not configured as searchable, which is an oversight which I've remedied in eebe235
  • The search is based on the fields in the model that we configure to be searchable (i.e., title, author first name, author last name, etc); it does not search on the string version that we compile out of those fields when we combine them for display. Can you explain why you're trying to search on the full string?
  • default ordering for sources is title, then year; ordering is case-sensitive. I don't have it set to order by author by default because there's some extra overhead in determining the first author. We could override that ordering for the admin site if it would make big difference. What ordering would be ideal, and how important is it?

@rlskoeser rlskoeser added the ❓ question Further information is requested label May 10, 2022
@richmanrachel
Copy link

@rlskoeser - I think we've been searching on the string because that's what we see in the other footnote boxes, so it's the most intuitive (as author appears first).

What you've described is really helpful (and wow, yes, just poked around a bit and it works so much better!). I guess I'm wondering if we should just provide help text/training for how to use the search?

@rlskoeser
Copy link
Contributor

@richmanrachel that approach makes more sense to me! It's always better for users to have a better understanding of how the systems work.

I'm not sure if there's a place for me to add help text here, but LMK what you think would be best and I'll look.

@richmanrachel
Copy link

I'll add a tip in the PGP Database Instructions and add a note on Slack for now!

@rlskoeser
Copy link
Contributor

Great. So can we relabel this to reflect the bug I fixed (search for source doesn't work if you include volume) and we can close?

@richmanrachel richmanrachel removed the ❓ question Further information is requested label May 16, 2022
@rlskoeser rlskoeser changed the title Search for sources isn't working as expected in admin interface. Search for sources in admin interface doesn't search on volume May 16, 2022
@rlskoeser rlskoeser changed the title Search for sources in admin interface doesn't search on volume Search for sources in admin interface doesn't include volume May 16, 2022
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
🐛 bug Something isn't working
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants