Currently when a user clicks on the buttons it will perform a search with AND operator, e.g: changed > 0 AND unchanged > 0, failed > 0 AND unchanged > 0
any thoughts about this?
would glad to get some feedback, thanks!
In my opinion, the buttons should by default not perform ADD operations on the search but instead be mutually exclusive.
This is mainly just based on my personal expectation of how such a UI would work, but also on the fact that I find my self care much more about just finding reports that had failueres or reports that had changes, but very rarely am I interested in finding reports that had several of there “boxes” ticked.
Also, pet-peeve of mine: I think clicking those buttons should update the searchbar accordingly, although I understand that might not be trivial considering you would have to handle userinput there. But having to look at several different menu items for basically the same thing is just tedious and confusing imo.
Thanks for the feedback @areyus !
So would it be better if only one of the the filters could be chosen each time? Or would it just limit the filtering?
As for the second suggestion, I don’t think we should add the filer text to the search input,
though how about adding a chip group under the search bar with the applicable queries? e g: PatternFly 4 • Chip group
That would at least be what I would expect the buttons to do, yes. Not sure if it would be consistent with how other Foreman UI elements behave, though.
That would be at least something. I think that’s how the Task page handles this, too? In that case, it would at least be consistent with how these kind of things are handled.
Personally, I always get confused when there are filtering options in different places displayed in diffent ways that all affect the same list, but that might as well be a “me” problem not many people else are experiencing.
We come up with the solution for filtering:
Toggle group will filter - overall status not a summary column (it’s a single select → which makes interaction easier and also based on this discussion there are not many use cases for status combination filtering.
For now, it will create a chip - also you can see that the toggle is selected.
(Note: With another group of designers we are working on designing a new search that would accommodate complicated queries but also attribute = value search, saving queries etc.)
I get your remark about consistency but it’s a bit difficult when Foreman itself is not consistent and when we are trying to introduce new design system (and new patterns with that)
