TB 3.1.9 Weirdnesses (bugs?) in Edit>Find>Search Messages

When the criterion window first comes up, Body is one of the options. 
But after entering several lines (I haven't counted how many), Body is 
no longer listed as an option.  If I haven't used Body as one of the 
first few criteria, I have to save the search, right-click on the Saved 
Search file to get Properties, and then add the Body search (sorry, no 
pun intended) criterion.

Not a big deal, but a weird glitch!

A much bigger deal:

Quote marks do *not* create an Exact Match search; "John Doe" produces 
the same results as John Doe, namely John AND Doe.  This is strange, 
considering that the new search mode ("Search all messages", top menu) 
*does* provide Exact Match search.  (In fact, I just noticed that it's 
the only one that does; Quick Search ("Filter these messages") does not.

You'd think that all the Search facilities would use the same underlying 
algorithm.

And the new Search facility, while excellent in many ways, is sadly 
deficient in one respect:  If I want to search for *all* messages 
relevant to John Doe, who may present himself as John Doe, JD, and 
Scruddlyumptious Jack, there's no way to find them all except with 
separate searches, right?  There's an (implied) AND, but no OR -- unless 
I've missed something.
0
Dudley
5/17/2011 5:40:39 PM
mozilla.support.thunderbird 22506 articles. 5 followers. Post Follow

3 Replies
392 Views

Similar Articles

[PageSpeed] 55

On 5/17/2011 1:40 PM, Dudley Brooks wrote:
> When the criterion window first comes up, Body is one of the options.
> But after entering several lines (I haven't counted how many), Body is
> no longer listed as an option. If I haven't used Body as one of the
> first few criteria, I have to save the search, right-click on the Saved
> Search file to get Properties, and then add the Body search (sorry, no
> pun intended) criterion.

I can't reproduce this, and don't know of a bug which reports same. Do 
you see anything in Tools > error console at the point at which it fails?


> Not a big deal, but a weird glitch!
>
> A much bigger deal:
>
> Quote marks do *not* create an Exact Match search; "John Doe" produces
> the same results as John Doe, namely John AND Doe.

In Search Messages dialog, the string you provide IS the exact string. 
So you must not provide quote marks.

 > This is strange,
> considering that the new search mode ("Search all messages", top menu)
> *does* provide Exact Match search. (In fact, I just noticed that it's
> the only one that does; Quick Search ("Filter these messages") does not.

Not strange - different code, coded in different era, using different 
approaches. The older stuff, "Search all messages", left untouched to 
explicitly to provide a search with old behavior.

And indeed quick filter (formerly quick search) and Search all  both use 
implied AND.


> You'd think that all the Search facilities would use the same underlying
> algorithm.

they are all different.

> And the new Search facility, while excellent in many ways, is sadly
> deficient in one respect: If I want to search for *all* messages
> relevant to John Doe, who may present himself as John Doe, JD, and
> Scruddlyumptious Jack, there's no way to find them all except with
> separate searches, right? There's an (implied) AND, but no OR -- unless
> I've missed something.
correct. the only way you can approximate it, is to NOT specify the 
precise email address and be generic as you can about the name.

-- 
contribute ... http://wiki.mozilla.org/Thunderbird:Testing
evangelize Thunderbird ... http://www.spreadthunderbird.com/aff/165/
assistance with bugzilla/Thunderbird QA ... 
http://www.mibbit.com/chat/?server=irc.mozilla.org&channel=#tb-qa
0
Wayne
5/17/2011 7:08:21 PM
On 5/17/11 12:08 PM, Wayne Mery wrote:

> On 5/17/2011 1:40 PM, Dudley Brooks wrote:

>> When the criterion window first comes up, Body is one of the
>> options. But after entering several lines (I haven't counted how
>> many), Body is no longer listed as an option. If I haven't used
>> Body as one of the first few criteria, I have to save the search,
>> right-click on the Saved Search file to get Properties, and then
>> add the Body search (sorry, no pun intended) criterion.
>
> I can't reproduce this, and don't know of a bug which reports same.
> Do you see anything in Tools > error console at the point at which it
> fails?

No, and I'm not sure it's an error.  But it's weirder yet, because what 
happened earlier today was that the first few lines of search criteria 
(i.e. if you click "+" to keep getting more lines) included Body, but 
after doing so a certain number of times, Body was no longer listed. 
But I tried it again just now to see how many lines it took for this to 
happen, and this time Body wasn't included at all, even in the very 
first line!  (Searching on the same folder as this morning, BTW.  I 
understand that searching on newsgroups would not include the same 
options as searching on mail folders.)

What is it that causes TB to have different behavior at different 
times???  This is hardly the first time I've encountered that.

>> Not a big deal, but a weird glitch!
>>
>> A much bigger deal:
>>
>> Quote marks do *not* create an Exact Match search; "John Doe"
>> produces the same results as John Doe, namely John AND Doe.
>
> In Search Messages dialog, the string you provide IS the exact
> string. So you must not provide quote marks.

Well, for several hours this morning, on a huge number of tries, it did 
not return the exact string.  And now ... it does!  Again ... WTF???

And, to forestall the question "are you sure you are doing exactly the 
same thing you did before?" -- since I wanted (this morning) to figure 
out exactly when "Body" disappeared, I wrote down exactly everything I 
did ... and this afternoon did it again, keystroke by keystroke ... and 
got different results!

On the other hand, when you right-click the Saved Search folder created 
by the search, the options *do* contain Body ... and if you add a new 
criterion the exact phrase is *not* found (the AND of the two words is 
found instead).

>> This is strange, considering that the new search mode ("Search all
>> messages", top menu) *does* provide Exact Match search. (In fact, I
>> just noticed that it's the only one that does; Quick Search
>> ("Filter these messages") does not.
>
> Not strange - different code, coded in different era, using different
> approaches. The older stuff, "Search all messages", left untouched
> to explicitly to provide a search with old behavior.

Not strange, then.  Backwards compatibility with a badly conceived UI 
results in ... a badly conceived UI.

> And indeed quick filter (formerly quick search) and Search all  both
> use implied AND.
>
>> You'd think that all the Search facilities would use the same
>> underlying algorithm.
>
> they are all different.

And speaking of a badly conceived UI:

>> And the new Search facility, while excellent in many ways, is
>> sadly deficient in one respect: If I want to search for *all*
>> messages relevant to John Doe, who may present himself as John Doe,
>> JD, and Scruddlyumptious Jack, there's no way to find them all
>> except with separate searches, right? There's an (implied) AND, but
>> no OR -- unless I've missed something.
>
> correct. the only way you can approximate it, is to NOT specify the
> precise email address and be generic as you can about the name.

Yep.  Which means there is no way to do a single search for John Doe,
JD, and Scruddlyumptious Jack, even though it's the same person.

The sensible thing would be full Boolean and/or Regular Expression 
search ... and a very old thread pointed to a bug report discussion 
which indicated that the low-level code (in some version, at least) 
actually does provide for Boolean search, but apparently nobody has ever 
written a UI for it.
0
Dudley
5/17/2011 8:01:24 PM
Even weirder --

Now if I go to a Saved Search folder, which I created with "Match any of 
the following" and, say, "Subject contains John Doe", "From contains 
John Doe", and "To contains John Doe" and it contains, say 17 messages 
.... if I then add "Body contains John Doe" ... it now returns 0 
messages!  It should, of course, return at least the same number, and 
possibly more, because of "Match any".  Now what's happening???

On 5/17/11 1:01 PM, Dudley Brooks wrote:

> On 5/17/11 12:08 PM, Wayne Mery wrote:
>
>> On 5/17/2011 1:40 PM, Dudley Brooks wrote:
>
>>> When the criterion window first comes up, Body is one of the
>>> options. But after entering several lines (I haven't counted how
>>> many), Body is no longer listed as an option. If I haven't used
>>> Body as one of the first few criteria, I have to save the search,
>>> right-click on the Saved Search file to get Properties, and then
>>> add the Body search (sorry, no pun intended) criterion.
>>
>> I can't reproduce this, and don't know of a bug which reports same.
>> Do you see anything in Tools > error console at the point at which it
>> fails?
>
> No, and I'm not sure it's an error.  But it's weirder yet, because what
> happened earlier today was that the first few lines of search criteria
> (i.e. if you click "+" to keep getting more lines) included Body, but
> after doing so a certain number of times, Body was no longer listed. But
> I tried it again just now to see how many lines it took for this to
> happen, and this time Body wasn't included at all, even in the very
> first line!  (Searching on the same folder as this morning, BTW.  I
> understand that searching on newsgroups would not include the same
> options as searching on mail folders.)
>
> What is it that causes TB to have different behavior at different
> times???  This is hardly the first time I've encountered that.
>
>>> Not a big deal, but a weird glitch!
>>>
>>> A much bigger deal:
>>>
>>> Quote marks do *not* create an Exact Match search; "John Doe"
>>> produces the same results as John Doe, namely John AND Doe.
>>
>> In Search Messages dialog, the string you provide IS the exact
>> string. So you must not provide quote marks.
>
> Well, for several hours this morning, on a huge number of tries, it did
> not return the exact string.  And now ... it does!  Again ... WTF???
>
> And, to forestall the question "are you sure you are doing exactly the
> same thing you did before?" -- since I wanted (this morning) to figure
> out exactly when "Body" disappeared, I wrote down exactly everything I
> did ... and this afternoon did it again, keystroke by keystroke ... and
> got different results!
>
> On the other hand, when you right-click the Saved Search folder created
> by the search, the options *do* contain Body ... and if you add a new
> criterion the exact phrase is *not* found (the AND of the two words is
> found instead).
>
>>> This is strange, considering that the new search mode ("Search all
>>> messages", top menu) *does* provide Exact Match search. (In fact, I
>>> just noticed that it's the only one that does; Quick Search
>>> ("Filter these messages") does not.
>>
>> Not strange - different code, coded in different era, using different
>> approaches. The older stuff, "Search all messages", left untouched
>> to explicitly to provide a search with old behavior.
>
> Not strange, then.  Backwards compatibility with a badly conceived UI
> results in ... a badly conceived UI.
>
>> And indeed quick filter (formerly quick search) and Search all  both
>> use implied AND.
>>
>>> You'd think that all the Search facilities would use the same
>>> underlying algorithm.
>>
>> they are all different.
>
> And speaking of a badly conceived UI:
>
>>> And the new Search facility, while excellent in many ways, is
>>> sadly deficient in one respect: If I want to search for *all*
>>> messages relevant to John Doe, who may present himself as John Doe,
>>> JD, and Scruddlyumptious Jack, there's no way to find them all
>>> except with separate searches, right? There's an (implied) AND, but
>>> no OR -- unless I've missed something.
>>
>> correct. the only way you can approximate it, is to NOT specify the
>> precise email address and be generic as you can about the name.
>
> Yep.  Which means there is no way to do a single search for John Doe,
> JD, and Scruddlyumptious Jack, even though it's the same person.
>
> The sensible thing would be full Boolean and/or Regular Expression
> search ... and a very old thread pointed to a bug report discussion
> which indicated that the low-level code (in some version, at least)
> actually does provide for Boolean search, but apparently nobody has ever
> written a UI for it.

0
Dudley
5/17/2011 8:42:25 PM
Reply:

Similar Artilces:

Bug DNN 3.1.1 Upgrade from 2.1.2 -> 3.1.0 ->
Somewhere along the process, (I missed when) a portal upgrade created a problem with portal creation. The site is created fine, but the password for the admin is never correct. I have to use host to correct it. Anyone faced this ?Do you know the truth when you hear it? are you using the same hash keys in your web.config? this got me one time-DarrenNeese.com-DNN ROCKS!-DeveloperSchool.com Thanks, this helped me narrow it down and realize it was possibly the upgrade from DNN2 to DNN 3. Since there are no hash keys in DNN2 because it uses an encryption key, how did you solve it?Do you know ...

superreview granted: [Bug 146075] 'Message > Edit Message As New' (== 'Edit As New...') set an incorrect initial "X-Priority:" value (when present), which messes up 'Options > Priority' U.I. also : #3
David Bienvenu <bienvenu@nventure.com> has granted David Bienvenu <bienvenu@nventure.com>'s request for superreview: Bug 146075: 'Message > Edit Message As New' (== 'Edit As New...') set an incorrect initial "X-Priority:" value (when present), which messes up 'Options > Priority' U.I. also http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=146075 Attachment 136141: 'mime_generate_headers()' patch v1 http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/attachment.cgi?id=136141&action=edit ------- Additional Comments from David Bienvenu <bienv...

superreview requested: [Bug 146075] 'Message > Edit Message As New' (== 'Edit As New...') set an incorrect initial "X-Priority:" value (when present), which messes up 'Options > Priority' U.I. also; a #3
Serge GAUTHERIE <gautheri@noos.fr> has asked David Bienvenu <bienvenu@nventure.com> for superreview: Bug 146075: 'Message > Edit Message As New' (== 'Edit As New...') set an incorrect initial "X-Priority:" value (when present), which messes up 'Options > Priority' U.I. also; and code cleanup. http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=146075 Attachment 150091: (Ev1) 'Options > Priority > ...' menu http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/attachment.cgi?id=150091&action=edit ------- Additional Comments from Serge GAUTHERIE &l...

superreview cancelled: [Bug 146075] 'Message > Edit Message As New' (== 'Edit As New...') set an incorrect initial "X-Priority:" value (when present), which messes up 'Options > Priority' U.I. also; a #3
Serge GAUTHERIE <gautheri@noos.fr> has cancelled Serge GAUTHERIE <gautheri@noos.fr>'s request for superreview: Bug 146075: 'Message > Edit Message As New' (== 'Edit As New...') set an incorrect initial "X-Priority:" value (when present), which messes up 'Options > Priority' U.I. also; and code cleanup. https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=146075 Attachment 150073: (Av2f) 'mime_generate_headers()' https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/attachment.cgi?id=150073&action=edit ...

superreview requested: [Bug 146075] 'Message > Edit Message As New' (== 'Edit As New...') set an incorrect initial "X-Priority:" value (when present), which messes up 'Options > Priority' U.I. also : #3
Serge GAUTHERIE <gautheri@noos.fr> has asked David Bienvenu <bienvenu@nventure.com> for superreview: Bug 146075: 'Message > Edit Message As New' (== 'Edit As New...') set an incorrect initial "X-Priority:" value (when present), which messes up 'Options > Priority' U.I. also http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=146075 Attachment 136206: 'mime_generate_headers()' patch v2 http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/attachment.cgi?id=136206&action=edit ------- Additional Comments from Serge GAUTHERIE <gautheri@noos.fr> ...

Implementing custom paging with gridview like 1.2.3.>>>>>>>>>Next with stored proc output
ALTER PROCEDURE [dbo].[sp_GetGriddata] @MeetingID INT , @Orderby VARCHAR(50) = 'FileName ASC',   -- Parmeters for Paging [Start] @TotalPages INT OUT, @CurrentPageNumber INT OUT, @NumberOfRecords INT = 5 , /*PageSize*/ @CurrentPage INT = NULL /*PageNumber*/ -- Parmeters for Paging [End] AS My stored proc as above parameters it returns the output as specied in above out parameters Pls explain how i can apply paging  1.2.3>>>>>>>>>Next  like in gridview with above output Hi Swati Jain:       &nbs...

Fox 3 Beta 5 >>>>>>>
Name: Hank Hill Product: Firefox Summary: Fox 3 Beta 5 >>>>>>> Comments: Wooosh! Love what it does. Faster than anything. I look forward to more. Thank you. From URL: http://hendrix.mozilla.org/ ...

simple code for search please>>>>>>>
hi>>i am work in project with asp.neti have code that search words in  only one page ,but i want simple code for search words in multiple pagesi mean i want put search box in home page and i can search for words in all pagesplease help me and dont late...');" title="Sad - ">......thanks   can u give us more information about how ur information is stored in your website so we can help u decide which search mechanism to use? cuz search can be done in a million ways  If this post was useful to you, please mark it as correct answer. Thank yo...

3.08->3.09->3.08 >> 3.10
Cryptic subject line, I know. I am currently running FF3.08 (I think... yup that's what the Help/About box says) and have been for sometime. (And I'm on Win XP) However, for the last several days every time I start FF I get a "checking for updated plugins" dialog and then a "you are now running 3.0x" page. the FF 3.0x was 3.09 once, and I have only noticed it once, but I'll pay closer attention to see if it comes up again. The help menu currently says its downloading 3.10, and its been saying that for several days. I've got a cable br...

superreview cancelled: [Bug 146075] 'Message > Edit Message As New' (== 'Edit As New...') set an incorrect initial "X-Priority:" value (when present), which messes up 'Options > Priority' U.I. also :
Serge GAUTHERIE <gautheri@noos.fr> has cancelled Jean-Francois Ducarroz <ducarroz@aol.net>'s request for superreview: Bug 146075: 'Message > Edit Message As New' (== 'Edit As New...') set an incorrect initial "X-Priority:" value (when present), which messes up 'Options > Priority' U.I. also http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=146075 Attachment 136206: (Av2) 'mime_generate_headers()' http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/attachment.cgi?id=136206&action=edit ...

superreview requested: [Bug 146075] 'Message > Edit Message As New' (== 'Edit As New...') set an incorrect initial "X-Priority:" value (when present), which messes up 'Options > Priority' U.I. also : #4
Jean-Francois Ducarroz <ducarroz@aol.net> has asked Scott MacGregor <mscott@mozilla.org> for superreview: Bug 146075: 'Message > Edit Message As New' (== 'Edit As New...') set an incorrect initial "X-Priority:" value (when present), which messes up 'Options > Priority' U.I. also http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=146075 Attachment 136206: 'mime_generate_headers()' patch v2 http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/attachment.cgi?id=136206&action=edit ...

superreview requested: [Bug 146075] 'Message > Edit Message As New' (== 'Edit As New...') set an incorrect initial "X-Priority:" value (when present), which messes up 'Options > Priority' U.I. also; a #2
Serge GAUTHERIE <gautheri@noos.fr> has asked David Bienvenu <bienvenu@nventure.com> for superreview: Bug 146075: 'Message > Edit Message As New' (== 'Edit As New...') set an incorrect initial "X-Priority:" value (when present), which messes up 'Options > Priority' U.I. also; and code cleanup. http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=146075 Attachment 150073: (Av2f) 'mime_generate_headers()' http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/attachment.cgi?id=150073&action=edit ------- Additional Comments from Serge GAUTHERIE <gautheri@...

superreview requested: [Bug 146075] 'Message > Edit Message As New' (== 'Edit As New...') set an incorrect initial "X-Priority:" value (when present), which messes up 'Options > Priority' U.I. also : #2
neil@parkwaycc.co.uk <neil.parkwaycc.co.uk@myrealbox.com> has asked David Bienvenu <bienvenu@nventure.com> for superreview: Bug 146075: 'Message > Edit Message As New' (== 'Edit As New...') set an incorrect initial "X-Priority:" value (when present), which messes up 'Options > Priority' U.I. also http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=146075 Attachment 136178: <FilterEditor.dtd> patch v1 http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/attachment.cgi?id=136178&action=edit ...

superreview requested: [Bug 146075] 'Message > Edit Message As New' (== 'Edit As New...') set an incorrect initial "X-Priority:" value (when present), which messes up 'Options > Priority' U.I. also : #5
Serge GAUTHERIE <gautheri@noos.fr> has asked Scott MacGregor <mscott@mozilla.org> for superreview: Bug 146075: 'Message > Edit Message As New' (== 'Edit As New...') set an incorrect initial "X-Priority:" value (when present), which messes up 'Options > Priority' U.I. also http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=146075 Attachment 136207: (Dv1) <MailNewsTypes.h> http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/attachment.cgi?id=136207&action=edit ------- Additional Comments from Serge GAUTHERIE <gautheri@noos.fr> 'approval1....

Web resources about - TB 3.1.9 Weirdnesses (bugs?) in Edit>Find>Search Messages - mozilla.support.thunderbird

Resources last updated: 11/29/2015 8:15:04 AM