Want a way to add a new Pointer pre-populated with the results from an existing Search (and/or just convert an existing Search to a Pointer).




hmm.  interested in sample use cases

I want to make a list of all of the project-related cards in a Wagn that aren't one it's core custom cardtypes. A search might easily find many/most of them, but it might miss some or be a bit too general, so being able to convert the search to a pointer and then hand-tweak it would be very helpful. I've run into this pattern several times (most recently on TRN). --John

  --John Abbe.....2013-03-13 18:21:05 +0000

I think better would be to give an edit widget. In other words, pretend you are using the search as a *options setting and somehow choose which *input setting (i.e whether you get a checkbox, selection list or radio box). But you don't want to use the *options setting generally so you can go outside the search.


I guess that's a related use case. More use cases may be useful too so we can select among similar implementations. I can imagine this working via a variation on existing *input processing where you have the checkbox form (for example) and also have a box for open pointer input (i.e. the regular input field you get with Add Item, well probably just the "Add Item" function).

  --Gerry Gleason.....2013-03-13 19:37:43 +0000

Not understanding your use case here. An example would probably help.


As for solutions, I don't see what *input has to do with it. For the case I described I have to be able to add and remove cards, so it can't be a Search card any more, and Pointer seems like the right type for it to become, yes? (Unless you're thinking of adding the capability for a Search to maintain a list of additions and deletions to be performed each time its run before it returns the list of cards. This would be powerful. but probably raises significant complexity, and I hope there are more elegant ways to handle use cases that want this kind of functionality.)

  --John Abbe.....2013-03-13 23:47:38 +0000

I didn't entirely follow either, but I *think* Gerry might be talking about the option of playing with search results without saving them. Even if you *do* end up saving them, something like what he's talking about might be part of the process.

  --Ethan McCutchen.....2013-03-14 02:59:47 +0000

Sounds like a different ticket, assuming (as I do) that we want to keep the scope of tickets smaller when reasonably possible.

  --John Abbe.....2013-03-14 03:37:02 +0000