How to limit by repository?

[dandavison]

Hi, sorry -- this is more of a question that a bug report: how do I search for issues in a specific repository?

When searching for issues, I'm usually only interested in a single repository. I think what I'd like is for gh i to behave like gh, i.e. when issued within a repository directory, to by default limit the search to that repository.

[gennaro-tedesco]

gh-i supports searching for issues among repositories owned by a specific owner, it does not limit by single repository itself.

However, you can do so by using gh-f instead with the -s option

gh f -s
repository name:
search:

which prompts you to specify the single repository you want to search in and the string to search for. Likewise, if you want your own issues within a repository, you can use gh f -m.

[gennaro-tedesco]

Did you have time to check the aforementioned solution using gh-f instead?

[dandavison]

Hey @gennaro-tedesco, thanks for the reply. I did look briefly at gh f before opening this issue. My superficial reaction was that it felt like it would make sense for it to take the repo from the current directory automatically (like gh does) and jump immediately into presenting a fuzzy search interface rather than the "fill out form" UX. But these were just superficial reactions based on cursory explorations so sorry and don't worry if they don't make sense!

[gennaro-tedesco]

My superficial reaction was that it felt like it would make sense for it to take the repo from the current directory automatically (like gh does)

The reason why (at the time I wrote this utility) I did not manage to restrict gh-i to the current repository is because the go library for gh interface does not support repositories as return value, and hence I could not filter by those. In gh-f, instead, I use directly the command line interface of gh which does indeed allow you to filter by repository and/or user. To summarise: the go client for gh does not allow filtering for repo, whilst the CLI does, which is why gh-i doesn't and gh-f.

I admit I have not looked into whether this has changed, lately. Perhaps it has and therefore we can do the exact same here: I will have a look :)