-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 69
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Use type_is_in
filter from the client to filter by multiple transaction types.
#9871
Conversation
This filter is already available on server.
Test the buildOption 1. Jetpack Beta
Option 2. Jurassic Ninja - available for logged-in A12s🚀 Launch a JN site with this branch 🚀 ℹ️ Install this Tampermonkey script to get more options. Build info:
Note: the build is updated when a new commit is pushed to this PR. |
Size Change: +88 B (0%) Total Size: 1.34 MB
ℹ️ View Unchanged
|
…ttic/woocommerce-payments into fix/use-type-is-in-filter
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Code changes look great to me! The changes overcome the bug of the earlier makeshift search term-based filtering with more specific type filters, which is awesome. A small nitpick on the changelog text.
I did a round of manual test too and it looks good to ship.
As earlier, we can use WCCOM to test with a large amount of data.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Although this is a much cleaner solution, using the search bar indicated to the merchant what filters are being applied.
Is there any indication of what filters are being applied? (in testing, I can't see any indication). Or does it not matter?
This seems important – we shouldn't have "hidden" state, modes or filters – it will confuse merchants and probably bite us later. Do we need to step back and consider the experience for merchants (i.e. design/UX)? |
Co-authored-by: Nagesh Pai <[email protected]>
Merging this because it would correct the mismatch. Better UX for filters will be tackled in another issue. |
Fixes #8783
Changes proposed in this Pull Request
Testing instructions
View Report
links arehttps://....&path=%2Fpayments%2Ftransactions&filter=advanced&...type_is_in%5B0%5D=dispute&type_is_in%5B1%5D=dispute_reversal
,type
in search fieldnpm run changelog
to add a changelog file, choosepatch
to leave it empty if the change is not significant. You can add multiple changelog files in one PR by running this command a few times.Post merge