YOUR OPINION, PLEASE >>

How can I remove the "Search Options" text from the screen and leave the functionality of it in place. I have
allow for search on a name like field, and those searches have to be EXACT WHOLE WORD searches. The
CASE or capitalization of the entry still shouldn't matter. The users can't be given any search OPTION check
boxes or any other parameters to adjust. That means that the Max. Returned Hits and the Sort by: and the
Sort Order: parameters must go away from user adjustment or sight but must be allowed to be adjusted
within the code.

In other words if someone wants to retrieve a record on "SMITH, John T"
they have to enter "SMITH, John T".

I can no longer allow partial string queries i.e. for the above name a query for
"SMITH, J" would be invalid for anyone except for someone with a last name of "SMITH" and a first name of "J"
only.

Just in case though, how can I remove the text from the screen and allow partial string search as well. For
example if some searches from "SMITH, J" the results will be "SMITH, John" and "SMITH, Joseph" etc.

I have already done this, but I would like you insight on a better way, to do it.

In sub html_view_search, add hidden fields to set the search options you want. To remove the search options text, delete the line

&html_search_options;

from sub html_view_search.

I'd like to see what your solution is to your problem. It might be the best one there is.


JPD

I don't think this is the best solution but it is what I did. This solution may be what's causing me other problems.

Nonetheless, here it is ...

Thanks.

Looks good to me. I don't see how it could cause any problems.

JPD

JPD,

I don't believe I can apply your solution by deleting the &html_search_options; from the
sub html_view_search routine. I still need the options to take effect, I just can't show
them to the users or allow them to change them. However, I still need the sort order to be
ascending, on the last_name and first_name field, and I need the whole words restriction
activated for both the last_name, and first_name field. Some of this isn't working, the sort
order does not sort on both last_name and first_name.

What should be ...
Actually comes back in the results set as ...
Can you help me out here?

Thank you.

You can delete &html_search_options; from sub html_view_search *if* you add the hidden fields to sub html_view_search instead of having them in sub html_search_options. I didn't realize you had put them there.

I'm a little confused (make that *a lot* confused! ). I thought that your database had one field for the name, in the form of
LastName, FirstName MiddleName

Isn't that what you said in another thread?

JPD

Hey JPD,

That's not really the answer I expected, since the problem does exist. Nonetheless, if that's the way it must be, then that's the way it must be.

Obviously, the last_name value should be sorted because for the most part the search can only be done on a single last name value. Therefore the single last_name value is returned and sorting makes no sense. But what about sorted first_name that accompany the last_name field value?

What am I not doing?

Thanks.

JPD Thanks for the response.

You are not confused, well maybe you are. I have 4 threads going right now and you have responded to all of them.

My record layout looks like the following ...
The actual search occurs on the "last_name" field and optionally on the "first_name"
field. However, I return the "display_name" in the result set to the user.

Thanks.

Is the "display name" a field? If so, you could sort on that field.

Or, since you require a last name to be entered in a search, you could sort by the first name field.

Or you could try the "sort on multiple fields" mod which is at http://www.gossamer-threads.com/...m12/HTML/001080.html.

When I said that your code would not cause a problem, I just meant that it would do the same thing as the search options. By default, DBMan sorts on one field only. You have to do some tweaking to get it to sort on more than one.


JPD

Hi JPD,

Thanks for a response.

Yes. The "display_name" is a field. I originally did the search and sort on that field. I split the "last_name" field off to try and get around a problem I was having with "whole word", originally.

Then the project owner made a mandatory criteria change, that essentially stated that the "last_name" field be the only one that is required to be entered and searched on. Optionally, a user can add a "first_name" value to the search criteria but the search could not go forward unless a "last_name" value was also entered.

I'll see how I can tie the search mod into the code.

Thank you.

I want to make sure that you understand that it is not necessary to search and sort on the same field. You can search on the "last name" field and sort by the "display name" field. Perfectly legal.


JPD

Hi JPD,

Thanks for the response.

Yeah I knew (a little) that you could split field purposes. Like what I do different from the default install, is search on "last_name", but I display "display_name". But I didn't know you could sort on a different field than you search on, in this language. I should have known though, everything is done in arrays, why not be able to do this.

Just need to know the code of the how to, and try a lot of different things, for a long time.

And, most importantly, have someone like JP Deni willing to work with you, help you out, and teach you.

Thanks.

Hi JPD.

Thanks for ALL of the responses.

Okay I understand what you're saying (now remember, I'm no expert at this stuff yet, so be kind)
when you say ...
... but, how do you formulate this, and where do you put it?

That "multi sort field" hyper-link might be helpful in the future but I am back to a one field sort, that's different from the search field.

Thanks.

Hi JPD.

I would like to cancel the last question.

I figured it out most of it.

I could be wrong but I believe this VALUE="4" determines what field number in the record
these actions are taken against.

How does this affect the "whole word" criteria for the search field which is field number "1".

Thanks.

Not exactly. It is the field that the results are sorted by. Only sorted. Has nothing whatever to do with the search.

Not one iota.


JPD