It was on my ToDo for feature review, thank you for the bump

Added it as https://www.ventismedia.com/mantis/view.php?id=16221

[quote]The issue is that the search syntax is unavailable in a collection's sub-node.
It is advertised, by tooltip, as being available.
It would be useful IMO.
But it not recognised as a valid query.[/quote]

I agree. IMO all search options should be available no matter the "view"

Is this issue on you your TODO list ... or it working as designed? ... I don't like it.

I started a new thread since [url=http://www.mediamonkey.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=30&t=95185]the previous thread[/url] isn't getting much love. Is it toxic for some reason?

The issue is that the search syntax is unavailable in a collection's sub-node.
It is advertised, by tooltip, as being available.
It would be useful IMO.
But it not recognised as a valid query.

The only person who responded to the issue raised in the above thread was Peke. He seems to be saying that if I did a contextual search in a sub-node, the sub-node implied additional context ... and for some reason, this makes the search syntax not applicable. ... I see neither the utility, nor the validity, of this assumption.

ie. say I am in EntireLibrary>Albums ... he says that I can't use fieldname:searchstring syntax in sub-nodes ... why? that seems unnecessarily limiting, and the exception increases MM5 complexity IMO.

The Use Case is situations like these:
[list]I set view mode to Albums, because I like the Grid display ... I am not implying the "album" tag has any context[/list]
[list]Say I wanted to see all albums whose title contains the word "the" ... and I don't want the list polluted by all the albums by "The Rolling Stones" or "Thelonious Monk" [/list]
[list]why can't I search on [b]album:the[/b], like I can elsewhere?[/list]


[list][b]or if I[/b] am in the AlbumArtists sub-node, and I want to filter to those AlbumArtists who have any album with "The Best Of" in the title ... I type "best", the list is empty ... presumably because you have assumed that I want you to apply AlbumArtist name context, from a my choice of the albumartist sub-node .. OK, I wasn't expected that, but it is kind-of OK I suppose, but this behaviour should be consistent; discussed at bottom of this post[/list]
[list]but it is really disappointing that I can't override this assumption ... ie search syntax in the form of [i][b]album:best[/b][/i] is not available in this context?[/list]

[list][b]or maybe I[/b] want to go to Composers, and I want to Composers who wrote some symphonies, I would like to be able to do a contextual search on [b]genre:symphony[/b][/list]

It seems bad that this [i]node also implies context behaviour[/i] is not consistent :
[list]if I go the the Artists node, and type "rolling", you only return artists whose name contains "rolling" [/list]
[list]but if I go to the Albums sub-node, and type "rolling", you return albums where the albumartist name contains "rolling", as well as albums whose title contains "rolling" ... [url=https://www.dropbox.com/s/xs28v2mm74ca01c/sub-node%20context%20confusing.png?dl=0]why is that?[/url] Doesn't it make MM5 harder to learn ... shouldn't this context thing be advertised somehow?[/list]

Fixed by 2213

[UPDATE] not fixed

[quote=Peke post_id=462715 time=1572426394 user_id=213]
It is debatable, but I see what you are saying.
[/quote]


thanks for engaging Peke.

ATM I am finding it hard to see how it is debatable.


[quote=Peke post_id=462715 time=1572426394 user_id=213]
For me ATM it looks like there is space for tweaking the feature.

eg. In your example I think that behavior should be either:
a) It acts like in All tracks
b) Ignores "??????:" and do a search according to parent field (in your example Albums)

Both have benefits but a) seams more logical?
[/quote]


The Collection gives context ... it is where the view's inclusion criteria are defined
Each of the Collection sub-nodes (eg, AllTracks vs Albums vs Artists) just tweak presentation (sorting, grouping) ... but all share the Collection's context.

All the sub-nodes have the same Full Text Search capability. So if I am in [i]Albums[/i] sub-node, and type Rolling Stones, the result includes all tracks where the [i]artist tag[/i] contains Rolling Stones ... there is no implied "parent" field here.

And then the search syntax gives powerful, but simple, increased user control over view's filter ... it is useful in the AllTracks node, and I don't see why it is any less useful in the other the sub-nodes.

And I don't see how anyone would guess that the syntax isn't offered across all of the Collection's nodes.

And this presumption is reinforced by the tool-tip. All sub-nodes display the same tool-tip, showing the same advanced search syntax tips.

You mention the "parent" field, as if it were an assistance in some way? I can't see that.

So yes, I agree 1) seems more logical to me also.

Hi,
It is debatable, but I see what you are saying.

For me ATM it looks like there is space for tweaking the feature.

eg. In your example I think that behavior should be either:
a) It acts like in All tracks
b) Ignores "??????:" and do a search according to parent field (in your example Albums)

Both have benefits but a) seams more logical?

Looks still like a bug to me Peke ... if no, then the sort syntax context rules are too complex IMO

I use the same search string in [url=https://www.dropbox.com/s/ehveq3qjlswi8lw/sort%20syntax%20should%20be%20ok.png?dl=0]both of these queries[/url] ... I think that it is reasonable to expect the same result
and look at the tool tip on the lower query ... it is actually showing me that the syntax is OK in this context

It is a reasonable assumption that the sort syntax would be common across all contextual search queries ... don't you think?

Hi,
It looks like bad syntax you are searching under Albums "album:Ya-Ya" in which case "album:" is not implied so it is included in search. I do not see the bug there or I am missing your point?

https://www.dropbox.com/s/ritl43d2t4j505x/search%20syntax%20broken.png?dl=0

works ok in full database search.