Preliminary proof-of-concept for `whereContainsIn`

lsst-epo / canto-dam-assets

Canto/Craft DAM Integration Plugin

MIT License

0 stars 0 forks source link

Preliminary proof-of-concept for `whereContainsIn` #4

Closed blnkt closed 6 months ago

blnkt commented 7 months ago

EPO-8705 Preliminary proof-of-concept for whereContainsIn

#390

blnkt commented 7 months ago

Change Requests

[x] If more than one key is provided it seems to only check the first key. For instance, given imageAlbum(whereContainsIn: {keys: ["smartTags"], value: "Board"}) returns a collection imageAlbum(whereContainsIn: {keys: ["name", "smartTags"], value: "Board"}) returns an empty array (presumably because no name includes "Board")
[x] Referring to the discovery issue, item 5 in my comment had a requirement of treating each word in the value as a term to try to match on. That functionality does not seem to be present yet. @ericdrosas87 decides whether it is the prerogative of the method args, or the method to enable this functionality (i.e. value can be a list of strings if you want, or your method can take the string it gets and split it into an array on whitespace).

khalwat commented 7 months ago

I didn't look deeply at the code, but the approach is exactly how I'd do it. 👍

blnkt commented 7 months ago

The second part of my previous request (breaking search term into words each of which is used to find matches) seems to be working as expected, but the first part would still seem to be an issue. Attached find a screengrab showing that the order of the keys seems to have a direct impact on what results are returned (i.e. different results for different order) AND that the order of the words in the search does NOT seem to have a direct impact on what results are returned (as expected).

https://github.com/lsst-epo/canto-dam-assets/assets/8166060/39710880-5a69-41e5-a4a9-d9e74439d5cc

ericdrosas87 commented 7 months ago

The second part of my previous request (breaking search term into words each of which is used to find matches) seems to be working as expected, but the first part would still seem to be an issue. Attached find a screengrab showing that the order of the keys seems to have a direct impact on what results are returned (i.e. different results for different order)

Interesting, I'll take a look at why that first issue is happening. What Canto album are you using?

AND that the order of the words in the search does NOT seem to have a direct impact on what results are returned (as expected)

We never talked about the ordering of the words in the search terms, I don't know where you're getting this idea from?

ericdrosas87 commented 7 months ago

Wait I'm not understanding what you're trying to show in that screen capture video, those are two completely different queries so returning different results would be expected?

Edit: Nevermind now I see what you're saying, it's returning different results based on the ordering of the keys, I'll look into this