Ability to search by site name

[dimasciput]

Based on https://github.com/kartoza/healthyrivers/issues/163

[meomancer]

hi @cchristelis @gubuntu @carina1000 should we split the search method? what i mean is we have radio button to "search by site" & "search by taxon"?

The problem if we search by site and taxon in one search is because the UI.

For example we search berg upper picture: Currently we have "xx records" under the site. If we able to search the site too, should we show all records under that site or just the records that has taxon "berg" under that site? It will also be a problem if no taxon found on the search but has site. Should we show 0 records or show all records.

I think the best is split the search, because the result content is already different. (site result based on the taxon that searched vs site result based on the site name).

[gubuntu]

well if we want a 'google search' we should be able to search for both or either in one box and then choose what we want from the categorised results as above.

Having separate searches is moving into filter territory. I don't see the problem with the above behaviour.

[dimasciput]

@gubuntu I guess we need the design for this, it's difficult for us to visualize this workflow with current design

e.g if we search agama what should we do ?

• show all sites with agama species in it ?
• show all sites with name agama ?

[gubuntu]

both I think. At this stage we must deliver what we have and focus on getting through more of the backlog. Then we can come back and refine search later.

[Vries14]

Reproduced in testing. "berg" search shows sites with "berg" species in it and sites with "berg" name