+ Add Question

Search with (...) & ... not as expected

TV

Hi...

Searching on the web site using the search string
(p1, p2, p3) & !@waiting !@fitting-out
lists all p1 and p2 tasks and then applies the label filters to p3 only.
The brackets () seem not to be honoured.

I have screen shots to show it.

Any advice?
thanks

All responses

David Trey staff
Replied on Sep 23, 2013 - 13:03

Hello Tony,

For complex searches, please always try to include the correct operators to the full search query.

In this case, the correct query should be:

(p1 | p2 | p3) & !@waiting & !@fitting-out

...assuming that the second label should also be excluded.


Best regards,
David

TV
Tony Voss premium
Replied on Sep 23, 2013 - 13:59

David... thanks...
What you have instructed works OK. But I originally started with
(p1 , p2 , p3) & !@waiting & !@fitting-out
which I would expect to list the priorities in separate sections, as it does with
(p1 , p2 , p3)
However,
(p1 , p2 , p3) & !@waiting & !@fitting-out
gives a result as if it had been
(p1 , p2 , p3 & !@waiting & !@fitting-out)
which implies that ( ) not operating properly.

I have now found that
p1 & !@waiting & !@fitting-out , p2 & !@waiting & !@fitting-out , p3 & !@waiting & !@fitting-out
gives me what I was after. Note there are no brackets ()

If I use brackets as here:
(p1 & !@waiting & !@fitting-out , p2 & !@waiting & !@fitting-out , p3 & !@waiting & !@fitting-out)
then it actually searches for:
Priority 1 & -@waiting & -@fitting-out & -@waiting & -@fitting-out
and also
Priority 3 & -@waiting & -@fitting-out)
It has lost P2 has an odd trailing )

Anyhow, your solution gives me what I need - thank you.

PS Perhaps a fuller reference section on search syntax would be good?

David Trey staff
Replied on Sep 23, 2013 - 14:46

Tony,

The brackets are basically just in cases when you have one common query and then it should apply to each elements in the bracket. The commas, however, are risky for complex searches. They're an "OR" by default and we use them mostly for dates (overdue, today), but we're aware of some issues with them - the more complex the search, the higher chance it may go wrong with them.

Nonetheless, we will crate a separate FAQ/Help section with detailed references for all features in the future.


Best regards,
David