#1
|
||||
|
||||
Bug: '?' in search field no longer working as expected
Please have a look at the screenshot:
P? should only return packages that start with P followed by one single character. But it also returns 2022-03-28 TP-GR If I remember correctly, I tested this before after your changes and it did work correctly. *P?, however, returns only P followed by one single character. |
#2
|
||||
|
||||
It's not a bug. I've implemented it this mode, see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wildcard_character
Quote:
__________________
JD-Dev & Server-Admin Last edited by Jiaz; 13.06.2022 at 14:53. |
#3
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
As far as I know, it's the same in Linux, right? BTW: In my first tests after your changes (your implementation of '?') file1.?? returned file1.rm but not file1.ram Now, this has changed. :( It also returns file1.ram Not as wanted/expected |
#4
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Quote:
check again with next core update
__________________
JD-Dev & Server-Admin Last edited by Jiaz; 13.06.2022 at 15:40. |
#5
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
p? now returns everything, where the second last character is a p. p? may only return strings starting with a p and having exactly 2 characters. Last edited by StefanM; 13.06.2022 at 16:13. |
#6
|
||||
|
||||
@StefanM: I'm sorry but working fine here, can't reproduce the issue
Filename: test.txt yes: test.txt yes: test.* yes: test.??? yes: *.??? no: test.?? no: test.?
__________________
JD-Dev & Server-Admin Last edited by Jiaz; 13.06.2022 at 16:36. |
#7
|
||||
|
||||
@StefanM: now I understand. wait for next core update
update will be available in next 5 mins
__________________
JD-Dev & Server-Admin Last edited by Jiaz; 13.06.2022 at 16:50. |
#8
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
But I will perform a more thorough test later, maybe tomorrow. Now I will test a few scenarios from my prio question. Yes, I know the last sentence doesn't belong here....... |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
I also have some Problems with Wildcard character.
I search a lot with * If I have a package, lets call it: This is an example Name for a Package If I put in Search: This*Package it should find the Package name, but it does not anymore (it worked this way a few days ago). I have to search for this, than it will work again: This*Package* Is this a bug or a feature |
#10
|
||||
|
||||
It is a feature/correction, as * and ? now work as in any other standard search:
This*Package should only return results which start with This and end with Package As soon as there are additional characters after Package you have to enter This*Package*. That's the definition. |
#11
|
||||
|
||||
@Search&Destroy
Can you please check if there is a space or something else behind Package? I will test myself by tomorrow
__________________
JD-Dev & Server-Admin |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
So, if I understand correctly, the idea is to enforce * for any variable content instead of assuming * for incomplete ends? But why not beginnings too for consistency? For example searching for is*package* will also match this package and, in the same way this*package* will match in this package. Why not treat the head the same way as the tail? |
#13
|
||||
|
||||
@radorn: thanks for the report! could reproduce the issue and will be fixed with next core update
__________________
JD-Dev & Server-Admin |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
It enforces the use of asterisks in many searches where they weren't necessary before, which is not all that intuitive, but I guess it allows for more precise searches, and if it's going to be done for ends, I think it should also be done also for beginnings, for consistency and for the gains in precision.
Thank you for your work |
#15
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Correct, I'll look forward to more user feedback on this and most likely add advanced settings to enable *old behaviour* if preferred
__________________
JD-Dev & Server-Admin |
#16
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
So glad to hear that you will not remove the new behavior - which is in compliance with the official definition - once again. |
#17
|
||||
|
||||
__________________
JD-Dev & Server-Admin |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|