-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 88
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Search UI overhaul #807
Search UI overhaul #807
Conversation
Disabling the action while the search view is open solved the issue. TODO:
|
The new search looks really cool! Thanks for implementing it. It seems like there are two small merge conflicts but other than that it looks good to me :) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I did not notice any problems in the conflict resolution :)
A few things I have noticed about the search while testing locally:
self._fs_monitor.get_book_online
is called twice for each book on each search (IIUC once whenSearchViewModel.authors
property is called and once forSearchViewModel.readers
property).- "Hide unavailable books" setting is not respected for book results - if I have it enabled, I still get book results from storage that is offline (NOTE: AFAIR, this feature did not work at all prior to this PR). IIUC this is because in
SearchViewModel.search()
thebooks
set is built directly fromself._model.books
, without checking if the books are online.
I believe both issues could be resolved e.g. if the search was further refactored by first getting the "online" books (if "Hide unavailable books" setting is enabled, all books otherwise) and then using it for both computing the set of books that match the query and building the author/reader results as well. This way self._fs_monitor.get_book_online
would be called once per book. Not sure if this should be done in a separate PR.
Co-authored-by: Naglis Jonaitis <[email protected]>
Codeclimate is complaining about non-existent problems again :/ |
Fixd. |
@naglis, could you give a final approval, so that GH allows me to merge this? |
@rdbende I think you need approval from someone with write/admin permissions (not sure how it is configured), as my approvals are gray. |
Huh, yeah. Never mind. Apparently this approval doesn't work if you don't have write access. I didn't know about it 😕 |
Anyway, your reviews were useful, so thanks for that! |
Done:
Remaining issue: