Opened 16 years ago
Closed 15 years ago
#4192 closed enhancement (worksforme)
Be able to set the path where search
Reported by: | guillaumeh | Owned by: | Ryan J Ollos |
---|---|---|---|
Priority: | normal | Component: | RepoSearchPlugin |
Severity: | normal | Keywords: | |
Cc: | Trac Release: | 0.11 |
Description
Hello,
To add in wich list: Possibilty to set the path where search in repository. We have, in my compagny, a very big repository, and if we could set the path where search, it'll safe time ! :)
Attachments (0)
Change History (11)
comment:1 follow-up: 4 Changed 16 years ago by
Resolution: | → fixed |
---|---|
Status: | new → closed |
comment:2 Changed 16 years ago by
Resolution: | fixed |
---|---|
Status: | closed → reopened |
comment:3 Changed 16 years ago by
Resolution: | → worksforme |
---|---|
Status: | reopened → closed |
comment:4 Changed 16 years ago by
Replying to athomas:
Is the
exclude
option not sufficient? eg.include = /some/path/*
When I try to include/exclude a path like /trunk/...
the plugin does not recognize the path.
I had to write it without the leading slash: trunk/...
.
Maybe that's what caused the ticket to be issued. Wouldn't you think leading slashes should be allowed?
comment:5 Changed 16 years ago by
I'm pretty sure I just do a glob match, so it's likely that Trac's repository paths don't include the leading /. A note to that effect would be useful in the Wiki...
comment:7 Changed 16 years ago by
Resolution: | worksforme |
---|---|
Status: | closed → reopened |
Heu... no, that's not sufficient.
My idear is to be able to set the path where search in the search form. For example, today, I want to search in /project1/ but tomorrow, I need to search in /project2/
And that the same for all of my team.
comment:10 Changed 15 years ago by
Owner: | changed from Alec Thomas to Ryan J Ollos |
---|---|
Status: | reopened → new |
Reassigning ticket after changing maintainer of plugin.
comment:11 Changed 15 years ago by
Resolution: | → worksforme |
---|---|
Status: | new → closed |
Seems like we could probably just strip leading slashes from the include
and exclude
parameters. Since the original issue is solved in this ticket, I have opened another ticket to list this feature as an enhancement. See #6558.
Is the
exclude
option not sufficient? eg.