project-lux / lux-marklogic

Code, issues, and resources related to LUX MarkLogic
Other
3 stars 2 forks source link

Estimate counts must match result counts when searching/faceting by date (from 1129) #47

Open gigamorph opened 4 months ago

gigamorph commented 4 months ago

Problem Description: While testing the deployment of these tickets: Update the advanced search date inputs and help text for date inputs #1878 Update date facets to reflect recent ML change #2007 Issue With Date Facets #1032 It was observed that the result count was correct BUT the estimate count on the results tab was sometimes incorrect. Likely due to the estimate count being unfiltered.

Expected Behavior/Solution: The estimate count displayed on the tab should match the count in the result list. This should occur whether a user is performing an advanced search or is using the facets to filter by date range.

Requirements: List of details required for the completion of the issue or requirements for the feature/bug. This can also include requirements that lie outside of the teams such as new design docs or clarification from an outside source.

Needed for promotion: If an item on the list is not needed, it should be crossed off but not removed.

UAT/LUX Examples:

Dependencies/Blocks:

Related Github Issues:

Related links:

Wireframe/Mockup: Place wireframe/mockup for the proposed solution at end of ticket.

brent-hartwig commented 3 months ago

I'm witnessing multiple oddities with the date search pattern and suggest its related ticket (#37) before this one.

brent-hartwig commented 3 months ago

The estimate count displayed on the tab should match the count in the result list. This should occur whether a user is performing an advanced search or is using the facets to filter by date range.

@jffcamp and @prowns, I'd like to reiterate my comment on #37: the expected behavior is not always achievable at scale. Facets and estimates are calculated on unfiltered results --results determined via indexes alone. We can investigate specific instances but need to reset expectations. Investigating specific instances may surface a bug or means to index the data better, but this will not be true in all cases.

For this particular ticket, I vote to retest after everything uncovered by #37's investigation is addressed.