survey: Incremental search usefulness

guy038

Hi, @cmeriaux, @alan-kilborn, @asvc and All,

Ah, Christophe ! Your Youtube animation is really valuable ! As they say in France: “A single image is better than a long speech !”. So, when I said :

Like Alan, I’m really dubious about the advantages of regular expressions in incremental search !

Now, I won’t be so hesitant and suspicious about it ! Indeed, despite of the fact that, in regex mode, the result of search, necessarily, does not respect a logic progression, I do see, now, the great advantage of an immediate match, as mentioned by @asvc, especially for beginners and intermediate regular expression users ;-))

I certainly do not want to appear as a guru, always having the best opinion on any subject. I am not infallible and able to recognize that I was wrong and that my judgment was a hasty fear ! As always, only practice will tell us the real potential of Incremental search, in extended or regex mode but I think it would be really useful to include this new feature in a next release ;-))

Most of a time, we’ll probably use the normal mode. But I admit that the possibility, from times to time, to run a regex or extended search is really a + !

Best Regards,

guy038

Alan Kilborn

@guy038 said in survey: Incremental search usefulness:

I certainly do not want to appear as a guru

Certainly no one thinks you try to be, you’re just doing the best you can.
You can’t help how others see you, up on the regex mountain. :-)

Now, I won’t be so hesitant and suspicious about it

Sure, OK…now I stand alone at not seeing a great amount of value in incremental regex search.
It doesn’t bother me.

Let’s see if it gets accepted.

But…how about other constructive criticism on the screencast, from someone other than myself?

Ekopalypse

@cmeriaux

Yeah, that’s what I’d like to have too. Very nice.
I’d rather have a combo box, and as @Alan-Kilborn said, the input field should fill the remaining space.
Another thing that is obvious but easy to forget is that each control should be created with WS_TABSTOP so I can use the TAB key to access it.

@guy038 - Ein Bild sagt mehr als tausend Worte (A picture is worth a thousand words)

cmeriaux

hello,
here is a new version with a dropdown list to select the mode. each string is same as the classical find dialog.
it’s much consistently that way (for the UI and the Code)
Tab stop hasn’t been forgotten ;-)
I’ve increased the width of the input field (much easier than filling the remaining space )
https://youtu.be/lnfJBeb2RkU

asvc

@cmeriaux said in survey: Incremental search usefulness:

Here is a screencast of the POC I’ve did. https://youtu.be/_s6BJf4sdw4

Yessss. Thanks heaps.

@cmeriaux said in survey: Incremental search usefulness:

Would you prefer several control (like in the screen cast) or a combo box to select the search mode ? I hesitate.

Good question.

Check-box: one click less to toggle mode
Drop-down: visually cleaner and allows to preserve space for the input field

I vote for the combo-box with (ideally) assignable hotkeys. For example:

CTRL+F – live regexp search
CTRL+SHIFT+F – open dedicated search window
ALT+SHIFT+F – something else.

Alan Kilborn

@cmeriaux :

I’ve increased the width of the input field

Have you opened an issue on this for github? Or maybe there is an existing one?
If one hasn’t been opened yet, with the addition of widening the input field maybe we are in the area of general improvements to incremental search, and the issue should reflect that.

What I’m getting to is another general improvement that I believe @guy038 brought up: The ability to switch back to the editor window without closing the incremental search window. Currently Esc closes the incremental search window and switches back, but it is rather visually disruptive to close the window when you are probably going to use it again soon.

I’d be okay with Esc switching focus back and a different keycombo (alt+f4 ?) closing the window.

The second video has a nicer look than the first. Well done.

cmeriaux

Thanks for you feedback.
Dop-down solution won.
I’ve created an Issue (https://github.com/notepad-plus-plus/notepad-plus-plus/issues/8247)
and a Pull request for the things I’ve done ( https://github.com/notepad-plus-plus/notepad-plus-plus/pull/8248 )

A Nigthly build is available if you want to test or to play.
https://ci.appveyor.com/project/cmeriaux/notepad-plus-plus/builds/32773840/job/yhkoe9ieaxdmkwuf/artifacts

Let’s create other issue for other demands. Let’s keep Pull Request as small as possible to increase the probability to be integrated.

guy038

Hi @cmeriaux,

I downloaded your test build, but I got the message :

"This application is not a valid Win32 application Surely connected to my old Win XP WP3 configuration !!

On the other hand, Christophe, what about a Whole word only option, which could be useful in Normal search mode ? Of course, it should be forbidden in case of regex search !

BR

guy038

Alan Kilborn

@cmeriaux said in survey: Incremental search usefulness:

A Nigthly build is available if you want to test or to play.

A better link for this might be the more upper-level one:
https://ci.appveyor.com/project/cmeriaux/notepad-plus-plus/builds/32773840

That way users of either 32-bit or 64-bit can follow the links down to grab the trial executable they would need. So, as an example, if you want the 64-bit exe, you could click on this:

and it would lead to a screen with this on it somewhere:

From there you would click Artifacts and this would take you to a page where you can actually download the trial version.

So what you would do would be to download and put the exe in the same folder as your normal v7.8.6 executable notepad++.exe is; then run the trial exe instead of the normal one. Another option is to grab a portable .zip version of 7.8.6 and replace put the downloaded .exe in the extraction folder for that.

cmeriaux

Hi @guy038 i’ve already though about whole word only option , but what’s the interest of incremental search if it’s not incremental due to whole word option. So I decided to not overload the UI.

About the nightly build test, it’s strange. Have you every managed to run a nightly build (x64 or x86 or mingwin). I don’t know what to say. what about moving to win10 ? Sorry for the troll.

guy038

Hello, @cmeriaux, @alan-kilborn and All,

I gave a try, using the @alan-kilborn’s link => Same negative result. But, don’t bother about it, never mind !

Now, regarding the Whole word only option, I’m usually using, for instance, the Firefox browser which has this option, though it searches in an incremental way ;-))

Cheers,

guy038

astrosofista

@Alan-Kilborn

Good advice, thank you. Without it I would have failed to install the test build.

It looks nice :)

Alan Kilborn

@astrosofista said in survey: Incremental search usefulness:

Good advice, thank you. Without it I would have failed to install the test build.

Yes, one thing I didn’t mention that maybe I should have:
There’s a Scintilla DLL artifact there as well, but as there typically aren’t often changes made to the Scintilla part of Notepad++, the one that comes with a recent Notepad++ releases should be fine to use for tests like these.
Also, I’m not sure these Scintilla DLLs are “signed”?

cmeriaux

@Alan-Kilborn Thanks alan for all the details you gave about nightly build.
Inded the scintilla.dll ant notepad++.exe are not signed

The nightly build issue on @guy038 computer means that DonHo release Npp++ with another compiler/options than AppVeyor tools (Visual Studio 2017) which may not support windows XP.

asvc

In light of the response from @donho… What are our options?

I have downloaded AppVeyor build, replaced SciLexer.dll and notepad++.exe in the NPP directory and got this:

Restoring old SciLexer.dll fixes the issue and Notepad++ launches with the brand new Regexp powers in the quick search bar! Thanks @cmeriaux .

As I do believe we can find a way to convey viability of this feature to mr. Ho, let’s think about next steps.

Would it be possible to highlight all matches instead of the 1st one? I have tried “Highlight all” checkbox – does not work.

cmeriaux

inded @donho refused the feature, I’m very disappointed

asvc

@cmeriaux said in survey: Incremental search usefulness:

inded @donho refused the feature, I’m very disappointed

Do you know him in person? You are both in France, maybe a glass of coffee could iron out wrinkles of communication…After the pandemic is over.

Now, on the more serious note, the application is a shining beacon of Open-Source movement: GPLv2 license, open development model, transparency, etc.

Question is, what to do when the respected key developer and project owner is in a disagreement with users? Options:

Maintain a fork that merges latest code with the selected patches
Persuade the key developer to accept some particularly handy pull requests
Make change a plugin which can be released independently

As we have evidence that pull request is at very least “mergeable”, I think #2 must not be disregarded as the least destructive and one that has highest chances to survive in a long term.

Do we have a messenger here who is in touch with mr.Ho and supportive of the feature discussed?

cmeriaux

@asvc unfortunately I don’t know him personally. A glass or coffee could help especially we are close to Paris. ;-)

@asvc said in survey: Incremental search usefulness:

Now, on the more serious note, the application is a shining beacon of Open-Source movement: GPLv2 license, open development model, transparency, etc.

Every thing is transparency but decisions of which feature is useful should be taken by several people instead only one (which is more a dictatorship). It should be something like marketing decision oriented toward user.

@asvc said in survey: Incremental search usefulness:

Question is, what to do when the respected key developer and project owner is in a disagreement with users? Options:

Good question. Answer 2 is indeed the better one but I do not know any messenger.

cmeriaux

@sasumner may be a precious help cause he have a higher clearance level on Github.
hello @sasumner we are several people who wants to use a Regexp in the incremental find bar, but it has been literally refused by donho. would you have an opinion on this topic, and would you help us ?
Thanks

asvc

Roger that, @cmeriaux . Would it take much of an effort to highlight all matches during regexp search?

I am willing to make a short & nice screencast that presents the feature and link it to the GitHub ticket with clear presentation.
Having all matches highlighted will add some good visual oomph.