aequos-solutions / modern-data-visualizer

Documentation for the Modern Data Visualizer solution
https://aequos-solutions.github.io/modern-data-visualizer/
8 stars 7 forks source link

[Bug] If selecting multiple multi-select taxonomy filter terms that include children, the AND filter does not work, it shows the same results as OR. #32

Open tmarchetti00 opened 2 years ago

tmarchetti00 commented 2 years ago

Problem: AND filter shows results for OR if you have a filter group set to taxonomy, multi-select with children. If you don’t include children, or are using a non taxonomy filter type, it AND works as expected.

Steps to reproduce:

  1. Set up a taxonomy term set filter group that includes child terms (“Select the item and all it’s children)
  2. Set up some nested terms
  3. Set up the Search results web part with “show selected filters” enabled
  4. Select multiple terms that include children.

image

  1. Click Apply.
  2. Look at the selected filters and results count

image

  1. In the Filter list, click the AND, and then click Apply.
  2. Look at the selected filters and results count

image

Notice that the counts are the same. From our data, they should change based on the AND or OR operator selected.

Repeat the above steps with Taxonomy terms that do not have children, and the AND works and shows a different result from OR.

image image image

Repeat the above steps with non Taxonomy filters and and or works.

Laul0 commented 2 years ago

Hi @tmarchetti00, thank you for your feedback, and the detail/quality of your issues 💪🏻 We will try to reproduce the same behavior on our side and keep you in touch.

Laul0 commented 2 years ago

This issue should be fixed with the latest release today. Feel free to reopen this issue if the problem persists.

ghost commented 2 years ago

Still seeing this issue with release 1.4 (no difference between AND/OR when using taxonomy filter and selecting a term with child terms with the option to include children).

Laul0 commented 2 years ago

Noted. We will try on our side again to reproduce the issue and define this issue with a high priority.

Thank you for your feedback