| Summary: | [Search]Support advanced search. | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [ECD] Orion | Reporter: | libing wang <libingw> |
| Component: | Client | Assignee: | libing wang <libingw> |
| Status: | RESOLVED FIXED | QA Contact: | |
| Severity: | enhancement | ||
| Priority: | P3 | CC: | john.arthorne, ken_walker, simon_kaegi, susan |
| Version: | 0.4 | ||
| Target Milestone: | 2.0 M1 | ||
| Hardware: | PC | ||
| OS: | Windows 7 | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Bug Depends on: | 392375 | ||
| Bug Blocks: | 365964, 372660 | ||
|
Description
libing wang
I understand the goal of a client side search for WebDAV, etc, but I would be curious to know if we have good reason to do it for our Orion file server. Lucene supports date ranges and many other kinds of queries that we currently don't expose on the client (fuzzy searches, auto-correcting typos in search terms, file size, etc). (In reply to comment #1) > I understand the goal of a client side search for WebDAV, etc, but I would be > curious to know if we have good reason to do it for our Orion file server. > Lucene supports date ranges and many other kinds of queries that we currently > don't expose on the client (fuzzy searches, auto-correcting typos in search > terms, file size, etc). The start point from the UI perspective was to provide a new page for advanced search. Once you are in the page, you can input your options there and hit "search" in the page. For orion files, to correct what I've said before, we don't have to do client side search. We are just exposing the Lucene options and pass the query to it. But I have another question here: Lets say webDav plugin wants to implement search. Then we will assume it will support advanced search. We have to define the contract for both query rule and response json format. How are we going to define these contract? We have search completion now. In 2.0M1 we can think about putting options in the completion UI. Advanced search is already supported. |