feat: search command by ishanarya0 · Pull Request #115

feat: search command by ishanarya0 · Pull Request #115 · raystack/stencil

Command:
$ stencil search <query> --namespace=<namespace> --schema=<schema> --version=<version> --history=<history>

Set either of version or history flags. Version flag is used to search on a particular version while history flag enables the user to search across all the versions.

ishanarya0 linked an issue

Feb 21, 2022

that may be closed by this pull request

		}
		defer conn.Close()

		query := args[0]

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

add check for args length. Otherwise it will panic if search query not given.

		strconv.Itoa(i + 1),
		h.GetNamespaceId(),
		h.GetSchemaId(),
		strings.Join(h.GetFields(), ","),

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Output of search results are unreadable if more number of matching field names or messages present. Maybe we can print each field/type name in separate row to make it more user friendly.

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Right! How about this @harikrishnakanchi?

Also, I am thinking of removing the "NAMESPACE" and "SCHEMA" details as well, since their values will be the same as the user passed in flags.

Showing 2 result(s) 
                                                      
1)                                                    
FIELD: stencil.One.field_one                          
TYPE: stencil.One                                     
VERSION: 1                                            
                                                      
2)                                                    
FIELD: stencil.One.field_one,stencil.One.Two.field_two
TYPE: stencil.One,stencil.One.Two                     
VERSION: 2                                            
     
TOTAL
2

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

something like this should be good.

Namespace	Schema	version	Type	Fields
org	schema-name	1	odpf.stencil.One	odpf.stencil.One.field_one, odpf.stencil.One.field_one

With this we need to group fields by type name. Currently it just returns all matching fields and all matching type. Fields can be segregated by type then show it.

This is how this will look now. WDYT about it?

Showing 3 versions 
NAMESPACE       SCHEMA  VERSION TYPES           FIELDS                          
mynamespace     abc     3       stencil.A.Z     field_z                         
.
.                      
mynamespace     abc     3       stencil.D.Z     field_z                         
                                                                                
mynamespace     abc     4       stencil.A.Z     field_z                         
.
.
.
.                       
mynamespace     abc     4       stencil.D.Z     field_z                         
                                                                                
mynamespace     abc     5       stencil.A.Z     field_z, field_z_z          
mynamespace     abc     5       stencil.A.Y     field_z, field_z_z, field_z_z_z
.
.
.                        
mynamespace     abc     5       stencil.D.Z     field_z                         
                                                                                
TOTAL:  16

Shall we remove the NAMESPACE and SCHEMA columns, since it will be a piece of redundant information (same as flag value)? @harikrishnakanchi

@ishanarya0 lets keep them. Also specifying namespace and schema should also be optional. User should be able to search across schemas. Does API support that right now?

@ishanarya0 lets keep them. Also specifying namespace and schema should also be optional. User should be able to search across schemas. Does API support that right now?

Yes, keeping them. Oh, yes they can be made optional too. Doing the changes. Thanks for pointing it out!