-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 380
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
Add search by metadata #272
Comments
Thank you for opening up an issue first, I really appreciate it! This is definitely a much-needed feature. So if I'm understanding correctly, your approach is proposing syntax similar to the following?: |
@CyanVoxel Yes, Your understanding is mostly correct. In currents state, tags are handled through 'unbound' category, since you already have them covered and I did not want to accidentally break anything) |
Sounds good! Thank you for working on this, and let me know if you have any questions! |
…StudioDev#272 and TagStudioDev#325) Adds ability to check the existence of fields of any type using the following syntax: ```has_<field>``` ```has_<field>:<True|False>``` Adds the ability to search the content of text_line and text_box fields using the following syntax: ```<field>:<text>``` (Replace whitespace with underscore _ in `text`) Updated test_search.py for new behavior.
Similar issues
This feature is considered to be one of "Priority Features" by readme, yet I did not find any opened issues on that topic. Although I found a pull request #190, which could make use of parsing field names from search query.
Suggestions
I did not check contributing rules beforehand, so I accidentally started working on issue beforehand. Here is snippet from my fork:
Current state
I have tried to not touch much of code in
Library.search_library
, only add few new functions to allow additional entries to be filtered, but all other features should have stayed the same.I planned to open a pull request straight up, but it is explicitly specified new issue to be opened beforehand, so let me know if is ok to go forward with this
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: