Custom filter challenge
Adrian Davey <adrian.g.davey <at> gmail.com>
2015-08-23 02:28:59 GMT
I am hoping someone can point out the
blindingly obvious here I have probably missed ...
I have an unexpected opportunity to visit one of the interstate
reading rooms of the National Archives, where I can access records
not normally accessible to me.
Among my gramps notes there are some in which for occasions like
this I have entered the relevant archive call numbers, together
with the name of the capital city the item is held, and a note
that the item in question has not yet been examined by me. There
may or may not be additional comments about whether this is
completely speculative, or whether there is already strong
evidence that record does relate to the correct individual. I need
to find these records quickly so I can order them for delivery to
the reading room prior to arrival!
I construct a custom note filter, consisting of two rules, each of
which are instances of the general filter "Notes containing
<text>". In the first instance the substring to be found is
"elbourne", and in the second it is "rchive". The option "All
rules must apply" is selected. The option to "Return values that
do not match the filter rules" is NOT selected.
A find using this filter returns EVERY note in the database, the
vast majority of which do not contain either substring!
Even if I was completely mistaken about any of my notes containing
the strings I am expecting, the result returned from a find using
this filter should be zero rather than all!
I get the same result [i.e. every note] even if the custom filter
contains just a single "Notes containing <text>" rule.
However, if instead I use the second filtering box within the
filter gramplet itself [Text ...]—rather than any custom
filter—the find is correctly limited to notes containing the
But it is of course limited to searching on a single substring,
whereas what I am trying to achieve is to search on [contains]
<substring1> AND [also contains] <substring2>.
Can anyone explain why there is this apparently inconsistent
behaviour between a custom filter and the operation of the Text
box in the filter gramplet? Is this the operator, or a bug? [I am
on 4.1.3-1 on w7pro32]
many thanks, Adrian
Gramps-users mailing list
Gramps-users <at> lists.sourceforge.net