Nicely done. Works like a dream.
Thanks! Glad you like it.
It is lacking one thing, I think. What about notes where tags collide. For example, maybe I want to find all the notes that have @foo AND @baz tags.
The word "collide" threw me there for a minute, but I think I understand - search for notes with two or more tags in common. The search function as implemented is a simple string match in the notes, you're thinking more along the lines of a "search engine" search. Interesting.
Is there a fix? Workaround?
You could change the code to make the search more in line with what you're envisioning. It would be a bit more plumbing to separate the search string into discreet terms, and then change the matching (and highlighting) code to work with a set of terms and logical conditions (AND and OR) rather than just a straight match/no match. That's a bit of work, actually.
But there is a very simple, if ugly, workaround. First, you need to remove the \Q from the pattern matching loop here:
# A little ugly: We're going to grep thru @all_notes looking for
# a match - but we need to strip the HTML markup (which we've
# added to turn tags into links) out of the notes before checkin
+g
# for a match, so that you don't match inside the HTML markup
# while searching. Also, you need to use a temp var, because
# otherwise grep will modify $_. Finally, use \Q (quotemeta)
+-
# we don't want full patterns here, too much risk
foreach (grep {my $t; ($t=$_) =~ s/<.*?>//g;
$t =~ /\Q$search_string/i}
@main::all_notes) {
(Note the comment about \Q being put in there explicitly because I thought regex searches would be too risky. We're taking the safety off, watch where you aim this thing...)
Anyway, change that line to look like this:
$t =~ /$search_string/i}
...and now you can do what you want by using the techniques outlined in The Perl Cookbook, Chapter 6.17, "Expressing AND, OR, and NOT in a Single Pattern." To search for @foo AND @bar, you'd search for:
@foo.*@bar|@bar.*@foo
To search for @foo OR @bar, you'd use:
@foo|@bar
Cavaet - if you're searching for strings not found in tags, search result highlighting will be screwy with this approach.
So that's a quick and dirty fix. Can't say I'm in love with it, but it does do what you want, and making the search box more robust would be a good deal more work.
Have a nice day
Thanks, I already am. You too. :-)
| [reply]
[d/l] |
Wow - you are fast!
This will do for me. Thanks you!
Thorarin Bjarnason
| [reply] |