View Issue Details
|ID||Project||Category||View Status||Date Submitted||Last Update|
|0021833||mantisbt||filters||public||2016-10-31 06:10||2019-05-26 01:29|
|Target Version||Fixed in Version|
|Summary||0021833: Highlight or emphasize the set filters in the filter form for easier visual recognition of what's being filtered|
In the filter form it's hard to see which filters have a value which filter the result, and which filters are set to a value which doesn't filter the results.
It'd be great if a filter's value and its name are highlighted or emphasized somehow if the filter is set. Rendering it in bold would probably suffice (or in Mantis 2.0 with the new GUI a different background colour might good).
"Show" and "Highlight changed" should probably be excluded from this because they don't filter records from the result.
These are displayed in normal style:
These are displayed in bold:
|Tags||No tags attached.|
I appended a screenshot which shows how it could look like.
The screenshot was actually created from a real Mantis installation because I wrote myself a little Mantis plugin which does the filter colouring in a very simple way: it adds an EVENT_LAYOUT_RESOURCES hook which uses jQuery to evaluate the values of the filter's hidden input fields after the page has loaded. Depending on the hidden input field's values an additional CSS class is added to the input's parent. This is just a workaround, though, because I think it'd be better if Mantis itself would add a CSS class to active filters.
mantis-21833.png (27,824 bytes)
mantis-21833.png (27,824 bytes)
I think this would be quite a useful improvement for the UI indeed.
From my experience with the filters, this should be the rules to decide if a filter is highlighted or not:
First, these filters should not be highlighted at all because they have no impact on the result set itself, only on the way the result set is displayed:
Then all other fields should be highlighted if their filter value is:
One exception is "Hide Status" where "none" does not filter the result set and should therefore not be highlighted.
maybe the simple question for highlighting is only:
imho this should be applied
If the highlight would based on the question "does filter use default value or not?" then the "Hide Status" filter would <i>not</i> be highlighted if it's using the default value "closed (and above)". I think that'd be inconsistent behaviour, because the filter <i>is</i> active and has an impact on the overall result set. The question is rather: is there any active filter which removes records from the overall, filter-less results set? If so, highlight it.
Including the search field as well in the highlighting is a good idea though.
"is there any active filter which removes records from the overall, filter-less results set? If so, highlight it." => perfect !
btw: would vote for a good visible highlighting (not to decent)
There is a plan to rebuild the filter UI so that only the modified fields are shown, and new fields would be added selectively, instead of showing all
You proposal for highlihting is based in the same premises. Once the relevant fields (modified) can be detected, having them highlighted or implemented as the new UI, ther is not much different internally.
Imho those changes should be implemented solidly before implementing this idea.
I am not sure if this idea should be input in the current issue or in issue # 0016854.
|2016-10-31 06:10||jensberke||New Issue|
|2017-02-22 08:14||jensberke||File Added: mantis-21833.png|
|2017-02-22 08:14||jensberke||Note Added: 0055740|
|2017-02-22 11:22||dregad||Note Added: 0055745|
|2017-02-22 14:51||jensberke||Note Added: 0055750|
|2017-03-29 06:07||hpvd||Note Added: 0056254|
|2017-03-29 06:18||dregad||Relationship added||has duplicate 0022603|
|2017-03-29 06:23||jensberke||Note Added: 0056257|
|2017-03-29 07:19||hpvd||Note Added: 0056259|
|2017-03-29 07:21||hpvd||Note Added: 0056260|
|2017-03-30 03:47||cproensa||Note Added: 0056275|
|2017-03-30 04:27||dregad||Relationship added||related to 0016854|
|2018-07-09 04:57||mantisiator||Note Added: 0060230|
|2019-05-24 16:28||atrol||Relationship added||has duplicate 0025790|