View Issue Details

IDProjectCategoryView StatusLast Update
0019302mantisbtfilterspublic2018-09-12 03:34
ReportervboctorAssigned To 
PrioritynormalSeverityminorReproducibilityhave not tried
Status newResolutionopen 
Product Version1.3.0-beta.1 
Target VersionFixed in Version 
Summary0019302: Free text search should match against tags
Description

I've noticed that if I put in a tag in the free text search field, i get N entries. But if I put the same tag in the tags field, I get > N matches. This means that we are not doing text search against tags.

TagsNo tags attached.

Relationships

has duplicate 0011976 closedcproensa Search by Tag 
related to 0007183 acknowledged new search function on field and custom field 
related to 0024750 acknowledged Allow text entry for search with partial match in custom fields filters 
related to 0011467 new Bug view page search within customized fields 

Activities

dregad

dregad

2015-01-30 03:04

developer   ~0048739

What's the rationale for searching tags via text search ?

IMO, free text search applies to text fields, so it makes sense that tags are not covered. If a user wants to search by tag, they should use the dedicated field.

vboctor

vboctor

2015-01-31 21:08

manager   ~0048757

Typically free text search is a way to look across all aspects of an item. This includes content, meta-data, etc. Searching via tags, will just give tags.

Currently it covers the following fields:

  • Summary
  • Description
  • Steps to reproduce
  • Additional Information
  • Issue notes.

The question is whether we should add not just tags, but:

  • Tags
  • Categories
  • Custom fields
  • issue ids
    etc

i.e. almost search everything vs. just few pre-canned fields. Think of it as the Bing/Google of the bug tracker.

hloehnert

hloehnert

2017-08-03 09:57

reporter   ~0057383

It seems, it will not be implemented in matisbt directly.
Any suggestion how to implement it by a plugin?

atrol

atrol

2017-08-05 15:37

developer   ~0057399

PR https://github.com/mantisbt/mantisbt/pull/1140

atrol

atrol

2017-08-05 15:44

developer   ~0057400

i.e. almost search everything

Not sure if this can be done with current approach for searching.
We might need some kind of inverted index, or use something like Elasticsearch / Lucene.

atrol

atrol

2017-08-08 03:17

developer   ~0057412

Whenever someone should start working on that, keep in mind what I commenetd in PR https://github.com/mantisbt/mantisbt/pull/1140#issuecomment-320712837

Strange result, as I got what I expected on one of my test systems.
It's been about 6 times slower after the changes when searching by text.

Independant from that, there is a serious conceptual issue.
After the changes, you are able to search based on data where you are not allowed to view the data.

E.g. set Read Access of a custom field to access level manager.
Log in as a developer and search by text.
You will see issues in the list where you are not allowed to see the custom field.

cproensa

cproensa

2017-08-16 14:12

developer   ~0057482

After the changes, you are able to search based on data where you are not allowed to view the data.

Agree, including tags, custom, fields, etc in the filter search needs more logic to account for user permissions on viewing those items, on a project, or issue level.
This would add a lot of complexity to an already complex filter query.

Additionally, i'm not sure the approach of "search everything" is all that good.
Ideally, i'd like to choose what items to search on: description, notes, tags, custom/plugin fields
(
note that plugin fields are not stored in database!)

Not sure if this can be done with current approach for searching.
We might need some kind of inverted index, or use something like Elasticsearch / Lucene.

Yes, best solution would be to have a dedicated search plugin, with al lthe advanced functionality, and keep native search more or less simple as it is now...

sandyj

sandyj

2018-09-11 13:50

reporter   ~0060639

A workaround might be to allow free text entry into the tags and custom field filters rather than just a drop down box option. 0024750
But IMO custom fields should be searchable in free-text search.

Issue History

Date Modified Username Field Change
2015-01-30 01:42 vboctor New Issue
2015-01-30 03:04 dregad Note Added: 0048739
2015-01-31 21:08 vboctor Note Added: 0048757
2017-08-03 09:57 hloehnert Note Added: 0057383
2017-08-05 15:37 atrol Note Added: 0057399
2017-08-05 15:44 atrol Note Added: 0057400
2017-08-06 08:36 atrol Relationship added related to 0007183
2017-08-08 03:17 atrol Note Added: 0057412
2017-08-14 18:37 cproensa Relationship added has duplicate 0011976
2017-08-16 14:12 cproensa Note Added: 0057482
2018-09-11 13:50 sandyj Note Added: 0060639
2018-09-12 03:33 dregad Relationship added related to 0024750
2018-09-12 03:34 dregad Relationship added related to 0011467