Skip to content
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

[BI-2343] - GID filtering not informative #435

Merged
merged 4 commits into from
Nov 27, 2024
Merged

[BI-2343] - GID filtering not informative #435

merged 4 commits into from
Nov 27, 2024

Conversation

HMS17
Copy link
Contributor

@HMS17 HMS17 commented Nov 19, 2024

Description

Story: BI-2343 - GID filtering not informative

Changes to enable exact match GID filtering for multiple tables

For Experiment Details and Sample Submission Details tables, frontend search is used, so a custom-search function was added in the respective buefy files to do exact search filtering in the GID case.

For Germplasm and Germplasm list tables, backend search is used, which presently only does partial matching. Due to the high risk associated with modifying backend search to alternatively enable exact or partial match for each filter, ResponseUtils:search was slightly modified to do an exact match specifically when the filter is accessionNumber.

Dependencies

bi-web: bug/BI-2343

Testing

see bi-web

Checklist:

  • I have performed a self-review of my own code
  • I have tested my code and ensured it meets the acceptance criteria of the story
  • I have tested that my code works with both the brapi-java-server and BreedBase
  • I have create/modified unit tests to cover this change
  • I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
  • I have made corresponding changes to documentation
  • I have run TAF: <please include a link to TAF run>

@github-actions github-actions bot added the bug Something isn't working label Nov 19, 2024
@HMS17 HMS17 marked this pull request as ready for review November 20, 2024 19:27
@HMS17 HMS17 requested review from davedrp and mlm483 November 20, 2024 19:31
Copy link
Contributor

@davedrp davedrp left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

FAILED TESTING.
Everything looks great and behaves perfectly. But, I did find one numeric column that has been overlooked.

If you navigate to Germplam > List > Details you’ll get something like:
Screenshot 2024-11-22 at 9 18 27 AM

The filter for Entry Number use the exact numerical match.

@HMS17
Copy link
Contributor Author

HMS17 commented Nov 26, 2024

FAILED TESTING. Everything looks great and behaves perfectly. But, I did find one numeric column that has been overlooked.

If you navigate to Germplam > List > Details you’ll get something like: Screenshot 2024-11-22 at 9 18 27 AM

The filter for Entry Number use the exact numerical match.

Added exact match for entry number

@HMS17 HMS17 requested a review from davedrp November 26, 2024 17:13
@HMS17 HMS17 merged commit 8e7ec0c into develop Nov 27, 2024
1 check passed
@HMS17 HMS17 deleted the bug/BI-2343 branch November 27, 2024 16:14
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
bug Something isn't working
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants