Upgrade StorageBook Section - Book Title not searchable as Title.
I was navigating around the tables in the sqlite db, and I noticed that [fields] has [title] and [bookTitle]. This made me wonder whether or not [bookTitles] were collapsed in to titles for the purpose of an advanced search.
It wasn't.
----
Repro:
1. Create a book and book section.
2. In the book for Title add: "Zee Test - Book - Title"
3. In the book-section for Title add: "Zee Test - Section - Title"
4. In the book-section for Book Title add: 'Zee Test - Section - Book Title"
5. Do an advanced search on Title for "zee test".
Expected:
Advanced search to either have a search option for "Book Title" or that "Title" encapsulated "Book Title"
Results:
Neither of the above ...
zee test - book - title and,
zee test - section - title
----
This made me wonder - why not just get rid of [fields].[bookTitle]? It seem what you really want to do is introduce a sub-type of field, not a new field.
In which case the right thing to do is to create a new table like [subfieldtype].This way if a person wants to search all types of titles it can be done by simply joining on the fieldtypeid irregardless of the subfieldtypeid (make it nullable). This makes a lot of sense and allows Short Title & Book Title to be tied to Title. To get this functionality all the UI would need is an extra checkbox in 'Advanced Search' with a description something like ... [x] Search subtypes of field (ie/ Title, Short Title, & Book Title instead of just Title)? .
This would also allow for some other interesting things like, "Date, Publish Date, Re-print Date, etc" and all it costs is an extra table (with probably 3 columns) and an extra column in every table that uses fieldID (baseFieldMappings, fields, itemData, itemTypeFields, & userFieldMask).
It wasn't.
----
Repro:
1. Create a book and book section.
2. In the book for Title add: "Zee Test - Book - Title"
3. In the book-section for Title add: "Zee Test - Section - Title"
4. In the book-section for Book Title add: 'Zee Test - Section - Book Title"
5. Do an advanced search on Title for "zee test".
Expected:
Advanced search to either have a search option for "Book Title" or that "Title" encapsulated "Book Title"
Results:
Neither of the above ...
zee test - book - title and,
zee test - section - title
----
This made me wonder - why not just get rid of [fields].[bookTitle]? It seem what you really want to do is introduce a sub-type of field, not a new field.
In which case the right thing to do is to create a new table like [subfieldtype].This way if a person wants to search all types of titles it can be done by simply joining on the fieldtypeid irregardless of the subfieldtypeid (make it nullable). This makes a lot of sense and allows Short Title & Book Title to be tied to Title. To get this functionality all the UI would need is an extra checkbox in 'Advanced Search' with a description something like ... [x] Search subtypes of field (ie/ Title, Short Title, & Book Title instead of just Title)? .
This would also allow for some other interesting things like, "Date, Publish Date, Re-print Date, etc" and all it costs is an extra table (with probably 3 columns) and an extra column in every table that uses fieldID (baseFieldMappings, fields, itemData, itemTypeFields, & userFieldMask).
I still like the idea of a subtyping especially when I consider the [userFields] table (this would be very interesting indeed)! This way a generic thing like a `title` can be used as a template for user-created field like "Sub-title", "Alternate-title," "Working-title," etc.