Represent facet.missing facets with an explicit internal representation #2516
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
cbeer
force-pushed
the
facet-missing-internal-representation
branch
2 times, most recently
from
4f1b8c4
to
413e3e6
Compare
jcoyne
approved these changes
Nov 12, 2021
corylown
approved these changes
Nov 13, 2021
cbeer
force-pushed
the
facet-missing-internal-representation
branch
from
413e3e6
to
48dfac9
Compare
bess
approved these changes
Nov 16, 2021
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This PR extracts a consistent internal representation for the "facet missing" facet item and addresses some url parameter parsing that leaked out of the
SearchStateinto query building and constraint display.I've also changed the URL representation from 2 kinda strange-looking parameters (
f[-subject_geo_ssim:[* TO *]][]=andf[subject_geo_ssim][]=) to 1 (f[-subject_geo_ssim][]=[* TO *]). I'm not sure to what extent we need to support the previous url representation here or not 🤷♂️