Skip to content
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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

Fees view: some facets are disconnected from the "amount recieved" widget #3734

Open
PascalRepond opened this issue Aug 21, 2024 · 0 comments
Open

Fees view: some facets are disconnected from the "amount recieved" widget #3734

PascalRepond opened this issue Aug 21, 2024 · 0 comments
Labels
client request Issue reported by production libraries correction An implemented feature doesn't work as expected. UX User experience, ergonomy

Comments

@PascalRepond
Copy link
Contributor

How it works

In the fees view, when selecting values in most facets or adding an expert query, the total in the top widget "Amount recieved" is adapted to take the filter into account.

For facets "Category" and "Owning library", this doesn't work. The total is not adapted to the current filter.

Improvement suggestion

All active facets/filters should influence the total displayed in the "Amount recieved" widget.
@PascalRepond PascalRepond added UX User experience, ergonomy correction An implemented feature doesn't work as expected. client request Issue reported by production libraries labels Aug 21, 2024
@PascalRepond PascalRepond changed the title Fess view: some facets are disconnected from the "amount recieved" widget Fees view: some facets are disconnected from the "amount recieved" widget Aug 28, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
client request Issue reported by production libraries correction An implemented feature doesn't work as expected. UX User experience, ergonomy
Projects
RERO ILS issues
Status: Product Backlog
Milestone
No milestone
Development

No branches or pull requests
1 participant
@PascalRepond