You can clone with
HTTPS or Subversion.
shows many page URLs containing "list" which should be returned in the first call.
Reported in http://forum.piwik.org/read.php?2,84935
Is there currently another way to achieve the segmentation behavior expected when using the pageUrl segment with the =@ contains operator? Thanks.
(In ) refs #2727 =@ and !@ for pageUrl / pageTitle segments
The segmentation mechanism with callbacks was built for comparing against a single ID, which only works for == and !=. I tried to introduce dynamic SQL sub-expression with as little impact on the existing system as possible.
Btw, I changed the "action not found"-value from -1 to -100 because we were discussing to use -1 for something else. When we do, we would most likely forget to change the value. ;)
(In ) Fixes #2727
IMPLEMENTATION NOTES / limitations:
when you add &segment=pageTitle!=XXXXX to the request, it will sometimes return a different result data set than when the parameter is not added at all (one might expect the same data set in both cases).
Adding a segment condition on pageTitle or pageUrl will restrict the visits being looked at, and once you add this condition segment=pageTitle== THEN Piwik will only look at visits that had at least one Page Title and then will apply the condition.
ie. When using segment=pageTitle!=test Piwik will IGNORE all visits that do not have any "Page title", and will then exclude the remaining "Page title" that do not match the condition.
it does not make sense to call Actions.getPageUrls segmented on pageTitle: result will not be what you expect.
Similarly, calling Actions.getPageTitles with segment=pageUrl=@Test will NOT return page titles that belong to a URL matching Test. Instead it will return all page titles, that have been visited by a visitor that visited a page URL containing Test.
Nice update, makes it much cleaner!
What makes you think the second limitaion exists? Page title und page URL are both action-based reports/segments, so the output should be as expected. It tried it on my local box and it works.
Thanks for feedback, reopening to investigate further my claim
You're right, it WORKS! :)