Search bug in Mac 8.7?
Sorry if this has been mentioned elsewhere but I searched for it here in the forums and didn't find anything. I am searching based on an email address to see what accounts are using it and I have stuff coming up that doesnt reference that email anywhere including in web form details. So for instance I search on "jasonkratz@blah.com" and my iCloud account shows up, which doesn't have a ref to "jasonkratz@blah.com" anywhere that I can see. Any ideas?
1Password Version: Not Provided
Extension Version: Not Provided
OS Version: Not Provided
Comments
-
Hi @jkratz,
I understand that when you're searching based on an email address, the search results include items that appear to not have the searched string. As a test, can you create a new item and copy over the details from one of these items? After deleting the older copy, does the new item show up in the search results?
I look forward to your reply.
Alvin
0 -
Well, of course I can't replicate it tonight ;) So I guess false alarm. Very odd.
0 -
OK it's happening again. Searching on an email and its showing results for at least several records that don't have that email listed when I check the history in the web version. v8 on the Mac is showing 64 results. Searching in the web version results in the correct items coming up and the list is 10 items.
1Password for Mac 8.7.0
80700049, on BETA channel
0 -
Hello @jkratz, thank you for letting us know about this. I'd like to understand the issue a little better.
Here's a quick question to start:
When you search "jasonkratz@blah.com" and other seemingly unrelated items come up, do these items contain any portion of that email address? For example,
jasonkratz, 'blah`, and so on? Or do they share no overlapping text at all?We'll look forward to getting to the bottom of this! 🕵️♂️
0 -
Hi Peter, yes. It was only the first part...in this case jason@.
0 -
Hello @jkratz, thank you for the follow-up. This is expected given how search currently works, since it's searching multiple parts of the phrase:
jasonkratz+blah+comrather than treating
jasonkratz@blah.comas a monolithic unit. I hope that makes sense.If you feel that this is detracting from the relevancy of your search results, let me know and I'll be happy to pass on that feedback. But I did want to let you know that this is consistent with the expected results of the search function at present.
0 -
Well, it makes sense if thats how its supposed to work but it doesn't make sense ;) I was searching for a full email, not just part of one and thats not how the old search worked at all nor does it work that way in the web UI. So in this case i could be searching on jasonkratz@blah.com and get a list back that has absolutely nothing related like jason@thisiswrong.com. Thats not how proper search should work. I'd understand if I typed in the three bits separately but not a specific email.
Let me give a specific use case. I have an email that i used lots of places that I want to replace with another one (lets say the original is jasonkratz@blah.com). right now in this scenario I'm getting back like 56 results that have nothing to do with that email and maybe 3 that do. I just want 3 results to see how many i've got left. I don't want to have to crawl thru 56 other items looking to see if maybe it was an alternate email, or a saved web form field or something.
0 -
+1 for bringing back the ‚old‘ way how search worked. Search should try to find what I have entered, no matter if it is a substring/part of o word. Furthermore it should not split search phrases on word boundaries that are than searched separately.
0 -
Thanks for the feedback, folks. I have appended your requests to our discussion of the search feature.
ref: dev/core/core#9056
0 -
OK so this is interesting. If I just search in the search field it behaves like @PeterG_1P described. However, if I select anything in the left-hand pane (I have categories showing there), including All Items, and do Edit->Find it works like I expect it to. ie: if I search on "jason@blah.com" it matches that exactly. It seems to be finding what I expect but not really sure what fields that search looks thru. Its at least a workaround.
0 -
Hi @jkratz, thanks for this!
The
searchandfindfeatures are indeed different here (search was present first, and we recently added the find feature to help with some of the use cases folks have been sharing with us). I hope this does provide a short-term solution for you, and we'll keep iterating on the search feature on our end. 👍0 -
Yeah so far so good. I'd prefer the main search go back to what it was ;). But I can deal for now.
0
