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

Dashboard : add extra filters & orders on my proofs #839

Open
1 of 4 tasks
raphodn opened this issue Sep 23, 2024 · 7 comments · Fixed by #944
Open
1 of 4 tasks

Dashboard : add extra filters & orders on my proofs #839

raphodn opened this issue Sep 23, 2024 · 7 comments · Fixed by #944

Comments

@raphodn
Copy link
Member

raphodn commented Sep 23, 2024

Story

https://prices.openfoodfacts.org/dashboard/proofs

Some users have many proofs, and want to easily filter through them (in order to find an existing proof for instance).

Currently there is only a filter to hide proofs with at least 1 price.

We could add new filters such as :

@serpico
Copy link

serpico commented Sep 23, 2024

Currently :

  • clicking on the user chip send to the user page
  • clicking on the date chip send the user to the date page
  • clicking on the location chip send the user to the location page

However there's no effect ( not for me anyway ) when clicking on Price tag chip , is it the same for Receipt chip ?

ChipToProof

@raphodn
Copy link
Member Author

raphodn commented Sep 23, 2024

in the Proof modal, clicking on the "Price chip" should work if you're the price owner. And send you to a /proofs/id page. (i just tested for me and it works)
though this is will probably change/be improved in the coming months, as there is more privacy-friendly features

@raphodn raphodn changed the title Dashboard : add extra filters on my proofs Dashboard : add extra filters & orders on my proofs Oct 1, 2024
@serpico
Copy link

serpico commented Oct 1, 2024

@raphodn how much work would it take to add order like :

  • proof with the greater number of prices first/at the top vs oldest first/at the top
  • oldest date first/at the top vs newest date first/at the top

although I could totally wait for the more versatile/powerful search feature #839

@raphodn
Copy link
Member Author

raphodn commented Oct 1, 2024

proof with the greater number of prices first

isn't this already available ? or did you mean proof with least number of prices ?
i feel this could be better managed with (super fine-grained) filters

@serpico
Copy link

serpico commented Oct 1, 2024

proof with the greater number of prices first

isn't this already available ? or did you mean proof with least number of prices ? i feel this could be better managed with (super fine-grained) filters

Yeah it's available, but once you display the least number on top then you need the option greater number to switch back...

I agree with you about the super-fine grained filters...I mentioned it in my original message, on the PR but I failed to copy that part here.

@raphodn
Copy link
Member Author

raphodn commented Oct 1, 2024

sorry i had removed your last sentence, i put it back ^^

and sorry but i still don't understand. there is already the option to order by "price_count DESC". you want to be able to order by "price_count ASC" as well ?

@serpico
Copy link

serpico commented Oct 1, 2024

I'm not exactly sure, but let's say we can hide by type of proof ( receipt / price tag ) and I know I have only 1 or 2 prices on the receipt I'm looking for, if I can only display greater number of price on top I'd have to scroll down quite a bit to get to that receipt...if I can revert the ordering and display the fewer number of prices on top, much less. But then again if we get something close to search-a-licious for proof with a lot of criteria

i feel this could be better managed with (super fine-grained) filters

Like you said it will be better than just basic DESC/ASC ordering.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
Status: Backlog
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

2 participants