Administrate: Should being searchable really be defined in the fieldtype?

[andrewhamon]

I tried adding password and password_confirmation as text fields in my user dashboard so that they can be updated. Things seemed to work great! Then I tried searching, which blew up.

In the search class, it looks like the assumption is made that any searchable field type exists as a database column.

Perhaps it makes more sense for this to be configurable?

For example, my User dashboard could have

SEARCH_ATTRIBUTES = [
  :email
]

and the search code might look like:

def search_attributes
  attribute_types.keys.select do |attribute|
    attribute_types[attribute].searchable? && search_attributes.include?(attribute)
  end
end

def attribute_types
  resolver.dashboard_class::ATTRIBUTE_TYPES
end

def search_attributes
    resolver.dashboard_class::SEARCH_ATTRIBUTES
end

This may not be worth the trouble though if searching is going to be overhauled eventually.

[thomascullen]

You should be able to specify searchable in the with_options method in your dashboard class.

ATTRIBUTE_TYPES = {
    name: Field::String.with_options(searchable: false),
}

[andrewhamon]

Hi @thomascullen

It would be nice if it worked that way, but it seems to be hardcoded rather than based on options:

module Administrate
  module Field
    class String < Field::Base
      def self.searchable?
        true
      end
      # Truncated here for brevity
    end
  end
end

[andrewhamon]

But I do agree that with_options feels like a better way to configure this rather than a new array of searchable fields as I initially suggested.

[thomascullen]

The with_options method creates a new instance of Deferred which allows searchable to be set with options in its searchable? method.

Is using with_options not working for you?

[andrewhamon]

Oh my, I guess I didn't read the source closely enough. 😅 Ill give that a try and report back. Thanks!

[thomascullen]

Hah no worries! Glad to help :)

[carlosramireziii]

@andrewhamon Just wanted to check in on this. Were you able to get it working as @thomascullen suggested? If so, would you consider this issue resolved? Let me know, thanks!

[andrewhamon]

Hey Carlos, it's been a year and I don't even remember what my use case was. I'm gonna assume that I got things working. Let's go ahead and close.

[carlosramireziii]

Okay @andrewhamon sounds good. Thanks for getting back to me!