Uploaded image for project: 'Jira Data Center'
  1. Jira Data Center
  2. JRASERVER-31882

Inconsistent behavior of JQL Search when text contains operator

    • 74
    • 79
    • We collect Jira feedback from various sources, and we evaluate what we've collected when planning our product roadmap. To understand how this piece of feedback will be reviewed, see our Implementation of New Features Policy.

      NOTE: This suggestion is for JIRA Server. Using JIRA Cloud? See the corresponding suggestion.

      Test was performed on 5.2.7 with no plugins. It was done only against the summary field.

      Test issue summary was: "Test_1234"

      1. summary ~ 'test_1234' - Full match with underscore WORKS.
      2. summary ~ 'test_123' - Partial match with underscore FAILS.
      3. summary ~ 'test_123*' - Partial match with underscore and wildcard WORKS.
      4. summary ~ 'test_' - Partial match with no trailing characters after the underscore returns many issues which do not contain an underscore, one that does "Test Test _ Test Test", but not the one we want. FAILS.
      5. summary ~ 'test_*' - Partial match with a wildcard WORKS.
      6. summary ~ 'est_1234'- Partial match with missing leading characters. FAILS.
      7. summary ~ 'est' - Partial match with missing leading characters and no underscore. FAILS.
      8. summary ~ '*est' - Leading wildcards are prohibited by the system.

      I kind of understand 6 and 7 not working because we only claim to perform "simple derivatives of that word" in https://confluence.atlassian.com/display/JIRA/Advanced+Searching#AdvancedSearching-CONTAINS:~ but in concert with test 8, it means that you can not do any kind of mid word matching.

      Tests 2 and 4 seem to meet the requirement of "simple derivatives of that word" in that it is a string with a number of values removed from the end. How do we distinguish between test 4 failing, vs test 5 working?

      Test 4 also shows that the underscore "_" character is not being correctly handler by Lucene as it brings up a number of issues where "test" is mentioned in the summary but no underscore is present.

      Consistency in the behavior of this operator should be improved.

        1. CQA_CWS_VP.png
          CQA_CWS_VP.png
          98 kB
        2. CQA-1.png
          CQA-1.png
          146 kB
        3. screenshot-1.png
          screenshot-1.png
          99 kB

            [JRASERVER-31882] Inconsistent behavior of JQL Search when text contains operator

            From a user perspective, I just got a report touching this issue: "When I add a wildcard, I sometimes get less results instead of equal/more results"

            Sonny de Wit added a comment - From a user perspective, I just got a report touching this issue: "When I add a wildcard, I sometimes get less results instead of equal/more results"

            Why was this changed from a Bug to a Suggestion?  It is most clearly incorrect and inconsistent behavior.

             

            Benjamin Spead added a comment - Why was this changed from a Bug to a Suggestion?  It is most clearly incorrect and inconsistent behavior.  

            We're seeing the following behaviour with Jira 9.12.10.

            String PLM-UI-01

            • ~ "PLM-UI-01" works
            • ~ "PLM-UI-*" does not work
            • ~ "PLM-*" does not work
            • ~ "UI" works
            • ~ "UI*" works
            • ~ "UI" does not work

            String PLM-UI2-01

            • ~ "PLM-UI2-01" works
            • ~ "PLM-UI2-*" works
            • ~ "PLM-*" works

            If there is a number in the chunk after the first hyphen, a wildcard search matches it, if it's text only, it doesn't.

            Wendy Fergusson added a comment - We're seeing the following behaviour with Jira 9.12.10. String PLM-UI-01 ~ "PLM-UI-01" works ~ "PLM-UI-*" does not work ~ "PLM-*" does not work ~ "UI" works ~ "UI*" works ~ "UI" does not work String PLM-UI2-01 ~ "PLM-UI2-01" works ~ "PLM-UI2-*" works ~ "PLM-*" works If there is a number in the chunk after the first hyphen, a wildcard search matches it, if it's text only, it doesn't.

            Look at the original report date. Do you think they will ever fix it? I really doubt it, in 9 years they have come as far as "gathering interest", they don't even consider it a bug.

             

            And it's not even a "prefixed by" operator, since something as common as a number or an underscore will suppress a match, as can be clearly seen by the screenshots someone uploaded today. 

            Joachim Pihl added a comment - Look at the original report date. Do you think they will ever fix it? I  really doubt it, in 9 years they have come as far as "gathering interest", they don't even consider it a bug.   And it's not even a "prefixed by" operator, since something as common as a number or an underscore will suppress a match, as can be clearly seen by the screenshots someone uploaded today. 

            Jeppe added a comment -

            Prefixing a word with a wildcard does not work for us in Jira Cloud.

            Why isn't this implemented? By not implementing this, it is in fact not a "contains" operation, but a "prefixed by". Can we get a comment from Atlassian on whether this will be implemented?

            Jeppe added a comment - Prefixing a word with a wildcard does not work for us in Jira Cloud. Why isn't this implemented? By not implementing this, it is in fact not a "contains" operation, but a "prefixed by". Can we get a comment from Atlassian on whether this will be implemented?

            The question was asked:
            "I have long since realized that it won't be fixed, but an interesting question is: Is the same query well behaved on the Cloud version?"

            I experience the issue on the cloud version.

            Anthony Fabris added a comment - The question was asked: "I have long since realized that it won't be fixed, but an interesting question is: Is the same query well behaved on the Cloud version?" I experience the issue on the cloud version.

            Or even more interesting for those who cannot go with Cloud (like us). What's about Datacenter?

            Apart from that i cannot imagine, that there is big difference in the code base between Server, Datacenter and Cloud versions.
            The insufficient profit situation for the Server version, as mentioned by Sean M, most likely results from the necessity to support several platforms, i guess. But i agree that this is what Atlassian want's to get rid off.

            Klaus Foerschl added a comment - Or even more interesting for those who cannot go with Cloud (like us). What's about Datacenter? Apart from that i cannot imagine, that there is big difference in the code base between Server, Datacenter and Cloud versions. The insufficient profit situation for the Server version, as mentioned by Sean M, most likely results from the necessity to support several platforms, i guess. But i agree that this is what Atlassian want's to get rid off.

            I have long since realized that it won't be fixed, but an interesting question is: Is the same query well behaved on the Cloud version?

            subwooferbone added a comment - I have long since realized that it won't be fixed, but an interesting question is: Is the same query well behaved on the Cloud version?

            Sean M added a comment -

            Clearly the Server product isn't sufficiently profitable to support, as evidenced by Atlassian's recent decision to kill it off. So Server tickets like this just seem like a waste of time, and 8+ year old tickets that never got solved will just be a part of Atlassian's legacy. I wonder if they'll keep them around.

            Sean M added a comment - Clearly the Server product isn't sufficiently profitable to support, as evidenced by Atlassian's recent decision to kill it off. So Server tickets like this just seem like a waste of time, and 8+ year old tickets that never got solved will just be a part of Atlassian's legacy. I wonder if they'll keep them around.

            The ~ search is simply not working as described. And there's absolutely no chance to get the desired results.
            Please see https://getsupport.atlassian.com/servicedesk/customer/portal/20/GHS-202723
            We are wondering that this ticket is now open for nearly 8 years.

            Klaus Foerschl added a comment - The ~ search is simply not working as described. And there's absolutely no chance to get the desired results. Please see https://getsupport.atlassian.com/servicedesk/customer/portal/20/GHS-202723 We are wondering that this ticket is now open for nearly 8 years.

              Unassigned Unassigned
              bberenberg Boris Berenberg (Inactive)
              Votes:
              178 Vote for this issue
              Watchers:
              134 Start watching this issue

                Created:
                Updated: