[rfe] allow for | in threadpane and ab book quick searches this really could cover stuff like &, +, -, *, and other regex searches. but | is the easiest, because the current quick search is already an "or" search. say I wanted to search for everything in my inbox from naving and bienvenu. I'd do: naving|bienvenu As far as the other searches, those would be more work to support, so let's log seperate bugs for them.

resolve as dupe per bug 37941 *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 32641 ***

Reopening; the bug this was DUPed against was about search document in the browser; this one is mailnews related.

fix in hand for 3 pane. so cool!

Comment on attachment 105553 [details] [diff] [review] patch for the 3 pane check in, had sr=bienvenu still need to do AB QS

> How about & support. That's the one I'm finding I need most of the time. I think it could be done. I'm pretty sure mscott made it so we could mix & and | search terms, which he needed for mailviews. unread & (subject contains foo | sender contains foo)

How does this sound? "or" is easy, because we've already got an "or" search. If you QS on foo, you are doing: (subject contains foo) or (sender contains foo) The "|" operator is easy. If you QS on foo|bar, you are doing: (subject contains foo) or (sender contains foo) or (subject contains bar) or (sender contains bar) But what does foo&bar mean? I think this would make sense: (subject contains foo) and (sender contains bar) or (subject contains bar) and (sender contains foo) or (subject contains "foo&bar") or (sender contains "foo&bar") The third line there gets around the "Tom & Jerry" problem. If you QS on "Tom & Jerry", you don't mean mail from Tom about Jerry, or mail from Jerry about Tom, you probably mean mail about "Tom & Jerry"

why are we making quick search complicated ? Does jennifer buy what you have already checked in ?

The complexity is only in the code, the feature is invisible to the user if they don't know about it. It's not like adding extra buttons to make the whole thing more complicated to use. It's not even full regular expression ;)

I agree its ok to add this additional functionality to quick search. The additional functionality isn't visible. For users who just want the basic functionality of quick search, it works as expected. For more experienced users, quick search offers additional functionality.

I didn't want to add more code to quick search to parse the input string. My thinking is that this feature is not going to be used by many users. There is already an advanced search for "and" "or". But it is ok, if you feel otherwise.

> (subject contains foo) and (sender contains bar) > or > (subject contains bar) and (sender contains foo) > or > (subject contains "foo&bar") or (sender contains "foo&bar") Unless I'm mistaken, you can't do a search like that using the full-blown Search Messages UI. It would seem a little strange if the window provided by the 'Advanced...' button couldn't do everything that the Quick Search bar could.

Why can't you? You just need to check "Match all of the following" instead of "Match any of the offering" then add the individual search item. Takes more time yes, but thats why this is called quick search :)

> Why can't you? You just need to check "Match all of the following" instead of > "Match any of the offering" then add the individual search item. Surely, by definition you couldn't do a search involving OR operators if you're using 'Match all of the following'. Maybe I just haven't thought this through. Anyway, doesn't matter.

You are right in that it can't do the "or" between the statements. But thats there for quick search between we don't know if they mean for example "mike" as in subject or the sender. In the search interface it is clearly defined. Unless we take the order of search terms into consideration which would sure lead to some confusion.

power user feature, moving out.

MASS-CHANGE: This bug report is registered in the SeaMonkey product, but has been without a comment since the inception of the SeaMonkey project. This means that it was logged against the old Mozilla suite and we cannot determine that it's still valid for the current SeaMonkey suite. Because of this, we are setting it to an UNCONFIRMED state. If you can confirm that this report still applies to current SeaMonkey 2.x nightly builds, please set it back to the NEW state along with a comment on how you reproduced it on what Build ID, or if it's an enhancement request, why it's still worth implementing and in what way. If you can confirm that the report doesn't apply to current SeaMonkey 2.x nightly builds, please set it to the appropriate RESOLVED state (WORKSFORME, INVALID, WONTFIX, or similar). If no action happens within the next few months, we move this bug report to an EXPIRED state. Query tag for this change: mass-UNCONFIRM-20090614

MASS-CHANGE: This bug report is registered in the SeaMonkey product, but has been without a comment since the inception of the SeaMonkey project. This means that it was logged against the old Mozilla suite and we cannot determine that it's still valid for the current SeaMonkey suite. Because of this, we are setting it to an UNCONFIRMED state. If you can confirm that this report still applies to current SeaMonkey 2.x nightly builds, please set it back to the NEW state along with a comment on how you reproduced it on what Build ID, or if it's an enhancement request, why it's still worth implementing and in what way. If you can confirm that the report doesn't apply to current SeaMonkey 2.x nightly builds, please set it to the appropriate RESOLVED state (WORKSFORME, INVALID, WONTFIX, or similar). If no action happens within the next few months, we move this bug report to an EXPIRED state. Query tag for this change: mass-UNCONFIRM-20090614

MASS-CHANGE: This bug report is registered in the SeaMonkey product, but has been without a comment since the inception of the SeaMonkey project. This means that it was logged against the old Mozilla suite and we cannot determine that it's still valid for the current SeaMonkey suite. Because of this, we are setting it to an UNCONFIRMED state. If you can confirm that this report still applies to current SeaMonkey 2.x nightly builds, please set it back to the NEW state along with a comment on how you reproduced it on what Build ID, or if it's an enhancement request, why it's still worth implementing and in what way. If you can confirm that the report doesn't apply to current SeaMonkey 2.x nightly builds, please set it to the appropriate RESOLVED state (WORKSFORME, INVALID, WONTFIX, or similar). If no action happens within the next few months, we move this bug report to an EXPIRED state. Query tag for this change: mass-UNCONFIRM-20090614

MASS-CHANGE: This bug report is registered in the SeaMonkey product, but still has no comment since the inception of the SeaMonkey project 5 years ago. Because of this, we're resolving the bug as EXPIRED. If you still can reproduce the bug on SeaMonkey 2 or otherwise think it's still valid, please REOPEN it and if it is a platform or toolkit issue, move it to the according component. Query tag for this change: EXPIRED-20100420

Still an issue.

Valid RFE.