From 8c8920502d43db5d7540eb0373447be224b219dc Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: pacien Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2022 19:39:41 +0200 Subject: devdoc: describe the viewer's index as of v2.1 The viewer's internal tag indexing wasn't documented. This is a brief "reverse-engineering" of it accompanied with a few notes about its current issues. This constitutes some preliminary work before writing proper specification to clarify the otherwise undefined, dubious or conflicting behaviours. --- devdoc/viewer_index_v2.1.md | 156 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 156 insertions(+) create mode 100644 devdoc/viewer_index_v2.1.md (limited to 'devdoc') diff --git a/devdoc/viewer_index_v2.1.md b/devdoc/viewer_index_v2.1.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..c37e925 --- /dev/null +++ b/devdoc/viewer_index_v2.1.md @@ -0,0 +1,156 @@ +--- +title: "Viewer: index v2.1" +author: pacien +date: 2022-10-22 (v2) +--- + +# Abstract + +This is a short documentation of the viewer's internal index dating from the +first version of this software and still currently in use in version 2.1. + +This index was written without proper specifications or documentation, and has +evolved a lot since then. + +This document is an attempt at describing how this index is currently being +generated and used, before further work can be done on some proper +specification to clarify the problematic behaviours. + + +# Document version history + +1. 2022-10-15: call notes +2. 2022-10-22: rewritten + + +# Description of the current implementation + +## Generating the index(es) from the item tree + +The gallery item index (`index.json`) is loaded by the `galleryStore` and made +available as the `galleryIndex` attribute. + +Two indexes are derived from that file through the `indexFactory` service: + +- `tagsIndex`: + - Maps each tag "part" (component) to items tagged with it. + - Maps the left-most disambiguating component to all components on its right. + - Includes a normalised version of the tag for searching. + - (Stores the left-most `rootPart` component. This is not used anywhere). + +- `tagsCategories`: + - Same as `tagsIndex`, but partitioned by tag category prefixes as defined in + the viewer configuration. + + +## Search query input auto-completion "suggestions" + +The `TagInput` component suggests tags as the user types in that input field. + +This is provided by the `indexFactory.searchTags` function in fuzzy +(non-strict) mode, which only uses the global tag index. + +The fuzzy search is implemented as a normalised (lowercase) infix word lookup, +including the disambiguating tag parts. + +The auto-completion suggestions are independent of the current directory. +Suggestions yielding no result (incompatible with the current search query) are +not excluded either. + + +## Item search + +The search query is stored in the URL query. This allows a search to be shared +by copying the current URL. + +This URL search query is updated by `LayoutLeft.vue` to match modifications +made through the tag input or related filters "propositions". This component +also updates the store to match the URL query through `galleryStore.search`. + +A search query consists of three sets of tags: an intersection list, a forced +inclusion (union) list, and a forced exclusion list. The last two are denoted +with a `+` and `-` modifier prefix before the tag name. The order of the terms +does not matter. + +The result computed in `indexSearch.indexSearch` is given by +`(⋂(intersection) ∪ ⋃(forced inclusion)) ∖ ⋃(forced exclusion)`. + +The string representation of a query is parsed in `indexFactory`. It is +serialised by taking the `filter.display` property of filters, in +`LayouLeft.vue` for being displayed in the tag input and in the URL. + + +## Related filters "propositions" + +The left pane of the user interface lists related filters "propositions", +related to the current search results or directory being viewed. + +Tags in that pane are grouped according to the `tagCategories` gallery +configuration key. (This is currently buggy: some tags can appear in the wrong +category under some circumstances). + +The related tags are filtered with respect to the current search query or +directory: only tags that are present on the listed items are shown. + +Each "proposed" tag has an occurrence count of the items having that tag in the +whole gallery. (This is inconsistent with the locality of the filter). + +This is computed using a full gallery search through the `galleryStore` using +`indexFactory.searchTags` in strict (non-fuzzy) mode. + + +# Identified issues and proposals + +## Issues affecting the end users + +- Tags categories and disambiguation aren't properly defined: + - It is not clear whether intermediate tag components should be treated as + tags and suggested at all. (They currently are). + +- Tags with more than two components do not seem to be handled correctly: + - `a:b:c`: `c` is not registered as a child of `a` in `tagsIndex`. + - This seems to be the cause of tags being displayed in the wrong category in + the suggestion pane. + +- The tag input's auto-completion suggests impossible intersections: + - The fuzzy (non-strict) search does not work the same way as the suggestions + panel, which restricts the suggestions. + - This might however be problematic for forced inclusions (union) tags + which are still meaningful. + +- The tag occurrence counts in the related tags "propositions" pane is + misleading: + - This view suggests only the tags for the current search results + (descendants of the current directory and matching the current search query + if any), + - But the occurrence count for each tag is global (on the whole gallery + instead of the current search results). + + +## Issues affecting only the developers + +- Ambiguous terminology: + - For example "index" vs "index.json", or "tag suggestions" vs + "tag propositions" vs "tag completion". + - This confusion is reflected in the component naming and coupling… + - A glossary and would help. + - Refactoring and renaming the modules would help. + +- Tight coupling of the tag-related and index operations: + - It goes all over the place. + - Some concerns should and can clearly be separated for example: + - For example query parsing, compiling and actual run on the item tree. + - The new modules should make use of composition with the rest of the + components. + +- Lack of unit tests: + - Coupling is preventing easy unit testing. + - Once the concerns are separated: + - We'll have clear expected outputs with respect to some input. + - It should be easier to do unit testing: + - (perhaps through randomised property testing). + +- Minor: relatively verbose and intertwined imperative code: + - The query parsing and recursive tree operations would probably be more + elegant in PureScript than Javascript/Typescript. + - Same with unit and property tests. -- cgit v1.2.3