Do not filter users post search #9556
There are no files selected for viewing
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
|---|---|---|
|
|
@@ -412,7 +412,7 @@ const SpotlightDialog: React.FC<IProps> = ({ initialText = "", initialFilter = n | |
| ) | ||
| return; // bail, does not match query | ||
| } else if (isMemberResult(entry)) { | ||
| // Do not filter users | ||
|
There was a problem hiding this comment. This comment needs to say WHY (because we rely on the server to filter DIRECTORY results for us) There was a problem hiding this comment. Can you elaborate why clientside filtering is done in the first place? I think the spec suggests nothing of the kind, and I think additional validation seems superfluous since the server should be trustworthy enough. There was a problem hiding this comment. Probably a copy-pasta, but you'd need to ask whomever wrote it There was a problem hiding this comment. There was a problem hiding this comment. @HarHarLinks and me investigated it further and found the following: The component has different sources for the users: (1) the results from the user profile endpoint and (2) all users that joined any room that I am in. (1) was already server-side filtered using the user entered query: (2) is not pre-filtered, but every user is added to the possible user results: matrix-react-sdk/src/components/views/dialogs/spotlight/SpotlightDialog.tsx Lines 358 to 364 in 7a250f4 The conditional in discussion is thus required to filter the users in (2): matrix-react-sdk/src/components/views/dialogs/spotlight/SpotlightDialog.tsx Lines 414 to 415 in 7a250f4 However, this line will also filter the results that were already filtered by the server. This shouldn't be necessary because I would assume that we can trust that the homeserver returns proper results. ProposalWe would propose some refactorings to remove the double-filtering of the server results: // ...
+ const localUsers = findVisibleRoomMembers(cli, msc3946ProcessDynamicPredecessor).filter(... apply the filtering by trimmedQuery ...);
+ for (const user of [...localUsers, ...users]) {
- for (const user of [...findVisibleRoomMembers(cli, msc3946ProcessDynamicPredecessor), ...users]) {
// Make sure we don't have any user more than once
if (alreadyAddedUserIds.has(user.userId)) continue;
alreadyAddedUserIds.add(user.userId);
userResults.push(toMemberResult(user));
}
// ...With this change, the filtering of the possibleResults can be skipped: - } else if (isMemberResult(entry)) {
- if (!entry.query?.some((q) => q.includes(lcQuery))) return; // bail, does not match queryThere was a problem hiding this comment. Further, we suggest to add our use-case to the tests. |
||
| } else if (isPublicRoomResult(entry)) { | ||
| if (!entry.query?.some((q) => q.includes(lcQuery))) return; // bail, does not match query | ||
| } else { | ||
|
|
||
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 would prefer to remove the if statement completely