Closed Bug 503806 Opened 17 years ago Closed 14 years ago

Should QuickSearch be limited to 200 results and relevance sorted?

Categories

(Bugzilla :: Query/Bug List, enhancement)

Product:
Bugzilla
Component:
Query/Bug List
Version:
3.3.4
Type:
enhancement
Priority:
Not set
Severity:
normal

Tracking

()

Status:
RESOLVED WONTFIX

People

(Reporter: mkanat, Unassigned)

References

(Blocks 1 open bug)

Details

Now that QuickSearch uses "content matches" for comment searches, should it behave like the Simple Search, where we limit it to 200 results and sorted by relevance? I'm pretty sure we *should* do the relevance sort. But I'm not so sure about the 200-result limit. (I think all searches should have a 10,000-result limit, configurable as a parameter, but that's a whole other issue.)
Note that patch in bug 314364 caused following error to be logged: [Sun Jul 12 17:11:49 2009] [error] buglist.cgi: Use of uninitialized value in pattern match (m//) at buglist.cgi line 898. That's because order param is checked for relevance sorting but there is no such param (QS doesn't give explicit order). This is also the reason why there's no "this buglist sorted by relevance" message. I think this will (and should) get fixed as part of this bug.
QS shouldn't be limited to 200 results, nor should it be sorted by relevance. It should use *my* default sort order. Comments are only one part of the search and there is no reason they bypass my preferred (default) sort order.
Also, a parameter for this is useless. Define a constant in Constants.pm if you really want to.
We no longer accept new features for Bugzilla 3.6. Retargetting to 3.8.
Target Milestone: Bugzilla 3.6 → Bugzilla 3.8
This is making quicksearch useless for a lot of people.
Flags: blocking4.0?
Flags: blocking3.6.2?
Target Milestone: Bugzilla 4.0 → Bugzilla 3.6
(In reply to comment #6) > This is making quicksearch useless for a lot of people. Well, I understand what you're saying. However, it's not *this* making QuickSearch useless. This bug was actually a question of whether or not we *should* do it. We did not *intend* to do it--that's why it's a question, without a patch. I think what you might actually be talking about is bug 581622.
Severity: normal → enhancement
Flags: blocking4.0?
Flags: blocking4.0-
Flags: blocking3.6.2?
Flags: blocking3.6.2-
Target Milestone: Bugzilla 3.6 → ---
Sorry about the confusion about this bug, by the way. I understand how it could be confusing from the summary.
Suggesting WONTFIX per my comment 2. Opinions?
Assignee: general → query-and-buglist
Component: Bugzilla-General → Query/Bug List
Whiteboard: WONTFIX
(In reply to Frédéric Buclin from comment #9) > Suggesting WONTFIX per my comment 2. Opinions? I agree with that. Per comment 6, limiting the number of results would make it useless for my most frequent scenario: broader search (quick n dirty), then browser's Ctrl+F (find text) + "Highlight all" to search for certain keywords within summaries of results. About sort order, it seems reasonable to respect user's default sort order, as suggested by Frédéric.
3 months later, nobody objected => wontfix.
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Closed: 14 years ago
Resolution: --- → WONTFIX
Whiteboard: WONTFIX
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.