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

fix: change filter logic to avoid early returning #1852

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Feb 25, 2025
Merged

fix: change filter logic to avoid early returning #1852

Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
2 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
1be6796
fix: change filter logic to avoid early returning
setchy Feb 20, 2025
af75529
Merge branch 'main' into fix/filter-logic
setchy Feb 20, 2025
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
36 changes: 23 additions & 13 deletions src/renderer/utils/notifications/filters/filter.ts
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -13,33 +13,43 @@ export function filterNotifications(
settings: SettingsState,
): Notification[] {
return notifications.filter((notification) => {
let passesFilters = true;

if (settings.detailedNotifications) {
if (hasUserTypeFilters(settings)) {
return settings.filterUserTypes.some((userType) =>
filterNotificationByUserType(notification, userType),
);
passesFilters =
passesFilters &&
settings.filterUserTypes.some((userType) =>
filterNotificationByUserType(notification, userType),
);
}

if (hasIncludeHandleFilters(settings)) {
return settings.filterIncludeHandles.some((handle) =>
filterNotificationByHandle(notification, handle),
);
passesFilters =
Copy link

@grahamj grahamj Feb 20, 2025 •
edited
Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

You probably want included handles to override the user type check, eg. if you don't check User but have an included handle you'd want to pass.

so: !exclude && (type || include) && reason

edit: although that would mean include is useless if User is checked. Maybe the presence of include handles should imply User is unchecked? (ie. that you only want the specified users)

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Why not leave the logic as-is and treat all selected filters as an AND 🤔

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

It does mean as you pointed out (thank you for doing so), there is some interplay between User Type and the Handle Filters - but that seems OK to me.

@afonsojramos @bmulholland - interested to hear your thoughts 👂

Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

np, whatever you think :)

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I think it looks good as is. It can probably be improved with a little modularity, but it is fine as it is.

passesFilters &&
settings.filterIncludeHandles.some((handle) =>
filterNotificationByHandle(notification, handle),
);
}

if (hasExcludeHandleFilters(settings)) {
return !settings.filterExcludeHandles.some((handle) =>
filterNotificationByHandle(notification, handle),
);
passesFilters =
passesFilters &&
!settings.filterExcludeHandles.some((handle) =>
filterNotificationByHandle(notification, handle),
);
}
}

if (hasReasonFilters(settings)) {
return settings.filterReasons.some((reason) =>
filterNotificationByReason(notification, reason),
);
passesFilters =
passesFilters &&
settings.filterReasons.some((reason) =>
filterNotificationByReason(notification, reason),
);
}

return true;
return passesFilters;
});
}

Expand Down
Loading