I am wondering if it is possible to filter content in Sanity Studio according to set criteria. For example, return all published posts or all posts within a particular category, etc.
Here is a short video showing what I mean: https://www.loom.com/share/5af3a9dd79f045458de00e8f5365cf00
Is this possible? If so, is there any documentation on how to do it?
Thanks.
The easiest way I've found to make all kinds of filters is using the Structure Builder. With it you add as many sections you like, name them, and give it your own filter in the form of groq and params.
Se documentation: https://www.sanity.io/docs/structure-builder-introduction
As an example I've added a S.listItem to the deskStructure.js file that gets all articles that are missing the module field.
export default async () =>
S.list()
.title('Content')
.items([
// ...
S.listItem() // <-- New root item for my filters
.title('My article filters')
.icon(FaRegCopyright)
.child(
S.list() // <-- List of filters
.title('My article filters')
.items([
S.listItem() // <-- Item with filter description
.title('Articles without module')
.icon(FaCogs)
.child(
S.documentList() // <-- Filtered list of articles
.title('Articles without module')
.menuItems(S.documentTypeList(menuType).getMenuItems())
.filter('_type == $type && !defined(module)')
.params({ type: 'article' })
),
S.listItem(), // more filters
S.listItem(), // more filters
])
),
// ...
It doesn't make different filters on one list of elements. It's more making different lists that are all ready filtered as you need. And you can give it what ever icon and text you want. Potato/potàto ,'-)
In the sorting list I don't think you can do much other than adding more sorting. And It doesn't work when the list of elements get larger anyways so I wouldn't bother. But it's in the Sort Order section: https://www.sanity.io/docs/sort-orders
Related
I am trying to understand more in depth the difference between filter and item access control.
Basically I understand that Item access control is, sort of, higher order check and will run before the GraphQL filter.
My question is, if I am doing a filter on a specific field while updating, for instance a groupID or something like this, do I need to do the same check in Item Access Control?
This will cause an extra database query that will be part of the filter.
Any thoughts on that?
The TL;DR answer...
if I am doing a filter on a specific field [..] do I need to do the same check in Item Access Control?
No, you only need to apply the restriction in one place or the other.
Generally speaking, if you can describe the restriction using filter access control (ie. as a graphQL-style filter, with the args provided) then that's the best place to do it. But, if your access control needs to behave differently based on values in the current item or the specific changes being made, item access control may be required.
Background
Access control in Keystone can be a little hard to get your head around but it's actually very powerful and the design has good reasons behind it. Let me attempt to clarify:
Filter access control is applied by adding conditions to the queries run against the database.
Imagine a content system with lists for users and posts. Users can author a post but some posts are also editable by everyone. The Post list config might have something like this:
// ..
access: {
filter: {
update: () => ({ isEditable: { equals: true } }),
}
},
// ..
What that's effectively doing is adding a condition to all update queries run for this list. So if you update a post like this:
mutation {
updatePost(where: { id: "123"}, data: { title: "Best Pizza" }) {
id name
}
}
The SQL that runs might look like this:
update "Post"
set title = 'Best Pizza'
where id = 234 and "isEditable" = true;
Note the isEditable condition that's automatically added by the update filter. This is pretty powerful in some ways but also has its limits – filter access control functions can only return GraphQL-style filters which prevents them from operating on things like virtual fields, which can't be filtered on (as they don't exist in the database). They also can't apply different filters depending on the item's current values or the specific updates being performed.
Filter access control functions can access the current session, so can do things like this:
filter: {
// If the current user is an admin don't apply the usual filter for editability
update: (session) => {
return session.isAdmin ? {} : { isEditable: { equals: true } };
},
}
But you couldn't do something like this, referencing the current item data:
filter: {
// ⚠️ this is broken; filter access control functions don't receive the current item ⚠️
// The current user can update any post they authored, regardless of the isEditable flag
update: (session, item) => {
return item.author === session.itemId ? {} : { isEditable: { equals: true } };
},
}
The benefit of filter access control is it doesn't force Keystone to read an item before an operation occurs; the filter is effectively added to the operation itself. This can makes them more efficient for the DB but does limit them somewhat. Note that things like hooks may also cause an item to be read before an operation is performed so this performance difference isn't always evident.
Item access control is applied in the application layer, by evaluating the JS function supplied against the existing item and/or the new data supplied.
This makes them a lot more powerful in some respects. You can, for example, implement the previous use case, where authors are allowed to update their own posts, like this:
item: {
// The current user can update any post they authored, regardless of the isEditable flag
update: (session, item) => {
return item.author === session.itemId || item.isEditable;
},
}
Or add further restrictions based on the specific updates being made, by referencing the inputData argument.
So item access control is arguably more powerful but they can have significant performance implications – not so much for mutations which are likely to be performed in small quantities, but definitely for read operations. In fact, Keystone won't let you define item access control for read operations. If you stop and think about this, you might see why – doing so would require reading all items in the list out of the DB and running the access control function against each one, every time a list was read. As such, the items accessible can only be restricted using filter access control.
Tip: If you think you need item access control for reads, consider putting the relevant business logic in a resolveInput hook that flattens stores the relevant values as fields, then referencing those fields using filter access control.
Hope that helps
I'm using KeystoneJS v6. I'm trying to enable functionality which allow me to reorder the placement of images when used in another list. Currently i'm setting up the image list below, however I'm unable to set the defaultIsOrderable to true due to the error pasted.
KeystoneJS list:
Image: list({
fields: {
title: text({
validation: { isRequired: true },
isIndexed: 'unique',
isFilterable: true,
isOrderable: true,
}),
images: cloudinaryImage({
cloudinary: {
cloudName: process.env.CLOUDINARY_CLOUD_NAME,
apiKey: process.env.CLOUDINARY_API_KEY,
apiSecret: process.env.CLOUDINARY_API_SECRET,
folder: process.env.CLOUDINARY_API_FOLDER,
},
}),
},
defaultIsOrderable: true
}),
Error message:
The expected type comes from property 'defaultIsOrderable' which is declared here on type 'ListConfig<BaseListTypeInfo, BaseFields<BaseListTypeInfo>>'
Peeking at the definition of the field shows
defaultIsOrderable?: false | ((args: FilterOrderArgs<ListTypeInfo>) => MaybePromise<boolean>);
Looking at the schema API docs, the defaultIsOrderable lets you set:
[...] the default value to use for isOrderable for fields on this list.
You're trying to set this to true but, according to the relevant section of the field docs, the isOrderable field option already defaults to true.
I believe this is why the defaultIsOrderable type doesn't allow you to supply the true literal – doing so would be redundant.
So that explains the specific error your getting but I think you also may have misunderstood the purpose of the orderBy option.
The OrderBy Option
The field docs mention the two effects the field OrderBy option has:
If true (default), the GraphQL API and Admin UI will support ordering by this field.
Take, for example, your Image list above.
As the title field is "orderable", it is included in the list's orderBy GraphQL type (ImageOrderByInput).
When querying the list, you can order the results by the values in this field, like this:
query {
images (orderBy: [{ title: desc }]) {
id
title
images { publicUrl }
}
}
The GraphQL API docs have some details on this.
You can also use the field to order items when listing them in the Admin UI, either by clicking the column heading or selecting the field from the "sort" dropdown:
Note though, these features order items at runtime, by the values stored in orderable fields.
They don't allow an admin to "re-order" items in the Admin UI (unless you did so by changing the image titles in this case).
Specifying an Order
If you want to set the order of items within a list you'd need to store separate values in, for example, a displayOrder field like this:
Image: list({
fields: {
title: text({
validation: { isRequired: true },
isIndexed: 'unique',
isFilterable: true,
}),
displayOrder: integer(),
// ...
},
}),
Unfortunately Keystone doesn't yet give you a great way to manage this the Admin UI (ie. you can't "drag and drop" in the list view or anything like that). You need to edit each item individually to set the displayOrder values.
Ordering Within a Relationship
I notice your question says you're trying to "reorder the placement of images when used in another list" (emphasis mine).
In this case you're talking about relationships, which changes the problem somewhat. Some approaches are..
If the relationship is one-to-many, you can use the displayOrder: integer() solution shown above but the UX is worse again. You're still setting the order values against each item but not in the context of the relationship. However, querying based on these order values and setting them via the GraphQL API should be fairly straight forward.
If the relationship is many-to-many, it's similar but you can't store the "displayOrder" value in the Image list as any one image may be linked to multiple other items. You need to store the order info "with" the relationship itself. It's not trivial but my recent answer on storing additional values on a many-to-many relationship may point you in the right direction.
A third option is to not use the relationship field at all but to link items using the inline relationships functionality of the document field. This is a bit different to work with - easier to manage from the Admin UI but less powerful in GraphQL as you can't traverse the relationship as easily. However it does give you a way to manage a small, ordered set of related items in a many-to-many relationship.
You can save an ordered set of ids to a json field. This is similar to using a document field but a more manual.
Hopefully that clears up what's possible with the current "orderBy" functionality and relationship options. Which of these solutions is most appropriate depends heavily on the specifics of your project and use case.
Note too, there are plans to extend Keystone's functionality for sorting and reordering lists from both the DX and UX perspectives.
See "Sortable lists" on the Keystone roadmap.
I need to search for a text within a particular workspace. I need all items and fields, except comments.
I'm using php-wrapper for Podio API and Search in space function:
$attributes = array(
"query" => $query,
"ref_type" => "item", // I need just items, not tasks, statuses etc.
"search_fields" => "title"
);
$items = PodioSearchResult::space( $space_id, $attributes );
If search_fields parameter will be removed, it will search not only in titles, but in all fields. However, it will also search in comments left for each item and return that items as a result. But I need just results based on fileds values.
Of course, it is possible to list all the fields needed in search_fields. But there is a dozen of apps with a dozen of different fields each in that space. Moreover, fields could be added, edited or removed by workspace users. So it looks like a very rough and hard-coded solutiuon to list all the fields.
Is there another way to avoid comments in search results?
Podio doesn't have specific method to avoid only comments. But instead of hardcoding all the fields, you can query dynamically "Get app values" call and use the result in "search_fields".
I am currently working on a page for a web app that displays member data in a jQuery DataTable. I am building a custom plugin for the DataTable that allows for a wide range of filtering per table column.
My current task is to be able to retrieve filtered data from the DataTable, although not updating that data on the table. I know already it is possible to retrieve all filtered data by doing:
var data = $table.dataTable().$('tr', { filter: 'applied' });
This gets data for any text in the search box and any filters applied to columns. I am also aware this call gets the jQuery selectors of cells. That's what I need. But I need more...
My questions are:
Can I get data by only applying what's in the search box, without any other current filters applied to columns? I tried:
var data = $table.dataTable().$('tr', { search: 'applied' });
But that returns the same as { filter : 'applied' }.
Can I target specific columns for getting data, such as:
var data = $table.dataTable().$('tr', { filter: 'applied', columns: [1, 2, 5] });
Can I target specific columns AND what's in the search box?
My plugin needs to able to keep track of data with various combinations of column/search filters applied.
For DataTables 1.9
There is a fnFilter() API method but it applies filtering to the table which is not what you want.
Alternatively you may want to use fnGetData() to get the data for the whole table and filter it yourself.
For DataTables 1.10
There is a search() API method but it applies filtering to the table when used with draw() which is not what you want.
Also there is filter() API method. It is not exactly what you're looking for but very close, however you would need to perform the searching yourself.
You can retrieve the content of the search box as follows:
var searchVal = $('.dataTables_filter input', $table).val();
Then you would need to do the searching yourself, shown below is a simplistic approach which may not match how DataTables perform the search internally.
To search first and second column only, specify [0,1] to columns() method. If no parameters are specified, all columns will be searched instead.
var filteredData = $table.DataTable()
.columns([0, 1])
.data()
.eq( 0 )
.filter( function ( value, index ) {
returrn (value.search(new RegExp(searchVal, "i")) !== -1)
? true : false;
} );
According to the manual, variable filteredData would contain a new API instance with the values from the result set which passed the test in the callback.
To retrieve data for all or selected columns, use columns().data().
I've just checked the man page of CDbCriteria, but there is not enough info about it.
This property is available since v1.1.7 and I couldn't find any help for it.
Is it for dynamically changing Model->scopes "on-the-fly"?
Scopes are an easy way to create simple filters by default. With a scope you can sort your results by specific columns automatically, limit the results, apply conditions, etc. In the links provided by #ldg there's a big example of how cool they are:
$posts=Post::model()->published()->recently()->findAll();
Somebody is retrieving all the recently published posts in one single line. They are easier to maintain than inline conditions (for example Post::model()->findAll('status=1')) and are encapsulated inside each model, which means big transparency and ease of use.
Plus, you can create your own parameter based scopes like this:
public function last($amount)
{
$this->getDbCriteria()->mergeWith(array(
'order' => 't.create_time DESC',
'limit' => $amount,
));
return $this;
}
Adding something like this into a Model will let you choose the amount of objects you want to retrieve from the database (sorted by its create time).
By returning the object itself you allow method chaining.
Here's an example:
$last3posts=Post::model()->last(3)->findAll();
Gets the last 3 items. Of course you can expand the example to almost any property in the database. Cheers
Yes, scopes can be used to change the attributes of CDbCriteria with pre-built conditions and can also be passed parameters. Before 1.1.7 you could use them in a model() query and can be chained together. See:
http://www.yiiframework.com/doc/guide/1.1/en/database.ar#named-scopes
Since 1.1.7, you can also use scopes as a CDbCriteria property.
See: http://www.yiiframework.com/doc/guide/1.1/en/database.arr#relational-query-with-named-scopes