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

Jump to bottom

Recursive search displaying folders not containing files matching the pattern #13925

Closed
tsvng opened this issue Dec 2, 2022 · 5 comments · Fixed by #14183
Closed

Recursive search displaying folders not containing files matching the pattern #13925

tsvng opened this issue Dec 2, 2022 · 5 comments · Fixed by #14183
Assignees
@dkocher
Labels
bug dracoon DRACOON Protocol Implementation dropbox Dropbox Protocol Implementation googledrive Google Drive Protocol Implementation googlestorage Google Cloud Storage Protocol Implementation s3 AWS S3 Protocol Implementation
Milestone
8.5.6

Comments

@tsvng
Copy link

tsvng commented Dec 2, 2022 •
edited

Describe the bug
When using the recursive search feature to find files matching a certain pattern, it will display folders that DO NOT contain any files matching the pattern. When expanding these folders that do not contain files matching the pattern, it will not list any files (essentially act as an empty folder).

To Reproduce
Steps to reproduce the behavior:

  1. Go to a folder containing several directories
  2. Click on the search bar and enter a pattern that will hit a file within at least one, but not all of the child directories.
  3. Hit 'return' on the keyboard to enact the recursive search.
  4. See error where folders that do not contain any files matching the pattern will be listed.

Expected behavior
Per Cyberduck Docs
Only files matching the search or folders with containing files matching the pattern will be displayed in the browser.

Desktop (please complete the following information):

  • OS: macOS Monterey v12.5.1
  • Cyberduck Version 8.5.1 (38745)

Additional context
Used to work as expected until I updated to the latest version.
@dkocher
Copy link
Contributor

dkocher commented Dec 2, 2022

Please let me know for what protocols you can reproduce this.

@tsvng
Copy link
Author

tsvng commented Dec 2, 2022

This is when using Amazon S3 protocol.

@dkocher dkocher added the s3 AWS S3 Protocol Implementation label Dec 2, 2022
@dkocher dkocher self-assigned this Dec 2, 2022
@dkocher dkocher added the bug label Dec 2, 2022
@dkocher dkocher changed the title Recursive search displaying folders NOT containing files matching the pattern Recursive search displaying folders not containing files matching the pattern Feb 3, 2023
@dkocher dkocher added googledrive Google Drive Protocol Implementation googlestorage Google Cloud Storage Protocol Implementation dropbox Dropbox Protocol Implementation dracoon DRACOON Protocol Implementation labels Feb 3, 2023
dkocher added a commit that referenced this issue Feb 3, 2023
@dkocher
Fix #13925.
cefa85e
@dkocher dkocher linked a pull request Feb 3, 2023 that will close this issue
Fix #13925 #14183
Merged
@porg
Copy link

porg commented Feb 3, 2023

  • Docs:

    Only files matching the search or folders with containing files matching the pattern will be displayed in the browser.

    • 👍 Usability wise in an recursive outline view (a.k.a. "tree view") it makes sense to hide folders which have no matches in any of their deeper descendants. Those would be just an endless "orphan line" (folder, containing folder, containing folder, … containing folder which contains nothing that matched).
    • 👉 Whereas when filtering in the current directory only or in my proposed sticky filtered browsing the descendants should not matter at all!
      • Filtering, whether inclusive or exclusive should only apply on the current level!
      • Real orphan directories show up, unless a negative query operator) results them to get hidden.
      • And also directories, which would be empty if queried recursively, should be shown. Because the search is not recursive, but only applies to the active directory. Just wanted to mention that explicitly. That this is not changed into the wrong direction.

  • Today I also proposed Search query operator / slash which matches in directory names only #14182

    • @tsvng : Would this more differentiated search option help your in this your use case or other use cases?
    • @dkocher What do you say?
    • All: Feel free to tune in over there, if interested.

@dkocher
Copy link
Contributor

dkocher commented Feb 3, 2023

  • 👍 Usability wise in an recursive outline view (a.k.a. "tree view") it makes sense to hide folders which have no matches in any of their deeper descendants. Those would be just an endless "orphan line" (folder, containing folder, containing folder, … containing folder which contains nothing that matched).

Fixed with #14183.

@dkocher dkocher added this to the 8.5.6 milestone Feb 3, 2023
@porg
Copy link

porg commented Feb 3, 2023

  1. Glad to read about the fix.

  2. I'd appreciate a reaction to this my statement/inquiry:

  • 👉 Whereas when filtering in the current directory only or in my proposed sticky filtered browsing the descendants should not matter at all!
  • For the proposed sticky filtered browsing this is just to keep in mind.
  • For filtering in the current directory only: Is this working as described?

ylangisc added a commit that referenced this issue Feb 6, 2023
@ylangisc
Merge pull request #14183 from iterate-ch/bugfix/GH-13925
5ffabf8 
Fix #13925
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees

@dkocher dkocher

Labels
bug dracoon DRACOON Protocol Implementation dropbox Dropbox Protocol Implementation googledrive Google Drive Protocol Implementation googlestorage Google Cloud Storage Protocol Implementation s3 AWS S3 Protocol Implementation
Projects
None yet
Milestone
8.5.6
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

Fix #13925 iterate-ch/cyberduck
3 participants
@dkocher @porg @tsvng