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

Display multiple results in the search in the Title Record Link tab #5963

Closed
andre-hohmann opened this issue Feb 29, 2024 · 3 comments
Closed
Labels
feature import Import mappings and configurations

Comments

@andre-hohmann
Copy link
Collaborator

Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe.
The problem that only one result is displayed in the Title Record Link tab has been identified in the pull request:

This might lead to corrections in the metadata editor or on other stages of the workflow.
It would be better, if all relevant processes are shown in the Title Record Link tab, to enable corrections.

Describe the solution you'd like
It should be possible to find several results in the Title Record Link tab, which should also been displayed.
Example: Show all processes with the same base-ID and not a random one:

  • PrivZitob_1860391834
  • PrivZitob_1860391834-17860000
  • PrivZitob_1860391834-17870000

A possible technical solution might be described in:

@andre-hohmann andre-hohmann added feature import Import mappings and configurations labels Feb 29, 2024
@BartChris
Copy link
Collaborator

BartChris commented Feb 29, 2024

Thank you for creating the additional issue @andre-hohmann, but it has to be noted that the issue is only present in the Pull Request #5869, not in the current master branch.
The link for the possible solution (#5869 (comment)) is pointing to a solution for a different issue (the search in tite Title Link Tab is not a search for parents, but a general search, this is now adressed in #5967).
The problem that the search is not displaying mutiple results is adressed here: #5869 (comment)

@andre-hohmann
Copy link
Collaborator Author

@BartChris : Thanks for the explanation and sorry for the confusion.

So i guess, it is better to close this issue as "not planned" and to discuss this aspect on the pull request?

@BartChris BartChris closed this as not planned Won't fix, can't repro, duplicate, stale Mar 1, 2024
@BartChris
Copy link
Collaborator

@andre-hohmann Yes, i think that is the better idea.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
feature import Import mappings and configurations
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants