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

Filtering by checking multiple boxes is not consistent #264

Open
1 task
jillpe opened this issue Mar 21, 2024 · 1 comment
Open
1 task

Filtering by checking multiple boxes is not consistent #264

jillpe opened this issue Mar 21, 2024 · 1 comment

Comments

@jillpe
Copy link

jillpe commented Mar 21, 2024

Summary

User Feedback:
Noted that filtering by checking more than one box seems to work as an AND in for some categories (Subject and Keyword) and an OR in others (Types and Levels).

VIVA Goal:
Within a facet it should be "OR" and between facets should be "AND" So for example the user who selects "Nursing" from Subjects and "Anxiety" from Keywords and "Matching" and "Essay" from Types would get all Essay and Matching questions about Anxiety from Nursing.

Acceptance Criteria

  • When I select multiple facets (e.g. Subject and Type) we should ... AND those two sets? So we'd have (S1 ∪ S2) ∩ (T1 ∪ T2 ∪ T3) where ∪ is UNION (e.g. “OR”) and ∩ is INTERSECTION (e.g. “AND”).
@jeremyf jeremyf self-assigned this Mar 25, 2024
@jeremyf
Copy link
Contributor

jeremyf commented Mar 25, 2024

I have reviewed the SQL and the current state of queries is as described in the acceptance criteria.

Which means that we need to get a specific scenario/use case that they are encountering.

jeremyf added a commit that referenced this issue Mar 28, 2024
I'm uncertain why we had "AND" logic for the keywords and subjects, but
we're removing that logic.  I do remember writing the SQL and there
must've been a reason for this; but that is now lost to time.

Related to:

- #264
jeremyf added a commit that referenced this issue Mar 28, 2024
I'm uncertain why we had "AND" logic for the keywords and subjects, but
we're removing that logic.  I do remember writing the SQL and there
must've been a reason for this; but that is now lost to time.

Related to:

- #264
@jeremyf jeremyf removed their assignment Apr 22, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants