Add 'Matches' Search Option for Better Usability

[HyunahJang]

Checklist before requesting a review

Please delete options that are not relevant.

• I have read the CONTRIBUTING document.
• I have performed a self-review of my code.
• I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my feature works.
• This change requires a documentation update.

Description

• It fixes nothing, this upddate just adds a new function
  Add 'Matches' Search Option for Better Usability #20713
• Here is a brief description of what this PR does
  A new matches search operator has been developed and proposed to enable faster and more flexible ticket searches using simple text.
  In details, this contribution adds a new 'matches' search condition to complement the existing 'is' operator.
  While the current UI relies on dropdowns for selecting values, this new option allows users to enter text directly when the exact value is known. It improves search speed and simplifies the process by avoiding dropdown loading.
  This enhancement offers a more efficient and user-friendly way to perform targeted searches.

Screenshots (if appropriate):

[orthagh]

Hello.

Thank your for the feature.
While agreeing with the need, I'm not in favor to make it the default option. For the general usage of GLPI, most of our users will prefers the "contains" option.
But it may be in contradiction of the speed improvement you are seeking.

[HyunahJang]

Hello.

Thank your for the feature. While agreeing with the need, I'm not in favor to make it the default option. For the general usage of GLPI, most of our users will prefers the "contains" option. But it may be in contradiction of the speed improvement you are seeking.

Thank you for your feedback regarding the "contains" operator.
To reflect this, I will update the PR so that "matches" is in the middle of the list. This way it stays available as a useful complement without disrupting the usual workflow.

[HyunahJang]

I noticed the need unit tests label was added.
Could you please clarify if unit tests are required for this change?

[trasher]

Yes, unit tests are required for every new feature added

[HyunahJang]

Thank you for the explanation.
Just to confirm, my understanding is that the checks run by GitHub Actions are the unit tests, correct?
I see that 3 out of 8 tests have failed — should I work on fixing those failing tests?

[trasher]

Currently, this is the Coding Standards checks that are failing. Running vendor/bin/php-cs-fixer fix should fix them for you.

[trasher]

For tests, Search clas is already tested in the phpunit/functional/SearchTest.php file. You have to add a test case that covers your change in that file (testing Search class is not the more simple one, tell us if you have problems).

[HyunahJang]

Thank you very much for your explanation.
Before writing the test code, I would like to confirm something regarding the modification of other files.

The test "GLPI CI / E2E and web tests using late PHP and MariaDB versions (pull_request)" failed on my PR, so I am currently working on fixing it.
In this case, would it be acceptable for me to also modify the APIRestTest.php and Computer_SoftwareVersion.json files?

I appreciate your guidance.

[HyunahJang]

I wrote a test case and tried to run it using the following command: vendor/bin/phpunit phpunit/functional/SearchTest.php
However, it displayed the message: run: php bin/console database:install --env=testing ...
When I executed that command, I encountered an error. Could you please let me know if the database name should be something other than 'glpi-db'? Or is it possible that I am running the test in the wrong way?
I have already pushed the modified test case code in the SearchTest.php file, so I would greatly appreciate it if you could review it.
Thank you very much.

[trasher]

The test "GLPI CI / E2E and web tests using late PHP and MariaDB versions (pull_request)" failed on my PR, so I am currently working on fixing it. In this case, would it be acceptable for me to also modify the APIRestTest.php and Computer_SoftwareVersion.json files?

You can modify every file you need to add yout test case.

Bu, be careful about "E2E" tests failures... We have issues with that test suite, it often break for completely unrelated reasons.
Make sure fail is related to your changes before spending time on it ;)

[trasher]

I wrote a test case and tried to run it using the following command: vendor/bin/phpunit phpunit/functional/SearchTest.php However, it displayed the message: run: php bin/console database:install --env=testing ... When I executed that command, I encountered an error. Could you please let me know if the database name should be something other than 'glpi-db'? Or is it possible that I am running the test in the wrong way? I have already pushed the modified test case code in the SearchTest.php file, so I would greatly appreciate it if you could review it. Thank you very much.

Since GLPI v11; it is required to specify the environment used to run tests. So you have to add the --env=testing option when you run the tests, but also on database install.

A readme file to explain how to setup and run tests is missing in the phpunit directory, I've opened #20913 to fix that.

Your new test case does not seems incorrect after a very quick review.
Tests workflow is running (we have to run it manually because it's your first contribution) - we'll see if that works :)

[HyunahJang]

You can modify every file you need to add yout test case.

Bu, be careful about "E2E" tests failures... We have issues with that test suite, it often break for completely unrelated reasons. Make sure fail is related to your changes before spending time on it ;)

Thank you very much for your explanation. I will review my code once again, and if any modifications are needed, I will make the changes accordingly.

Since GLPI v11; it is required to specify the environment used to run tests. So you have to add the --env=testing option when you run the tests, but also on database install.

A readme file to explain how to setup and run tests is missing in the phpunit directory, I've opened #20913 to fix that.

Your new test case does not seems incorrect after a very quick review. Tests workflow is running (we have to run it manually because it's your first contribution) - we'll see if that works :)

Thank you for the clarification. I will retry with the --env=testing option. Also, thanks for opening the documentation fix (#20913). I really appreciate your help on my first contribution.

[trasher]

In the "E2E" workflow, the "web tests" part is failing because of the add of the new option; that should not be hard to fix.

Your new added test case seems to pass; that seems OK to me.

[trasher]

I've tried to fix remaning issues; but I do not have rights to push on your repository. Patch is attached.

0001-Remaining-test-fix.patch

[trasher]

I've opened another PR based on your branch + my test fix to target GLPI v11.

Thanks for your contribution.

[HyunahJang]

I sincerely apologize for my late reply. I also tried running the tests on my side, but they kept failing and I wasn’t sure how to proceed, so I couldn’t get back to you sooner. Thank you so much for opening another PR and helping me get my first contribution finalized. I’m really grateful, and I’m very happy that my work could be part of GLPI.

tests are failing

[HyunahJang]

hi, @trasher
it’s been a little while since my last update, but I’ve been looking into this issue.
I have investigated the code so far, and I believe the issue comes from the test cases.
So, I’ve made the changes and pushed them to my branch. I’d appreciate it if you could review them again.

[knibm]

This feature branch was rebased to the main branch also with squashing the multiple commits into a single commit, since the changes on main branch caused conflict.