Add support for Coordinates "not exists" filter

Hello Sebastian,

It would be nice to have an option to filter content based on whether coordinates are missing. The current version supports only the “exists” filter, but sometimes it would be useful to have a “not exists” option.

Good point. In the backend there is no operator for that yet, so it needs to be added there first.

In general you can also use NOT, but this has not been added to the UI yet. Perhaps this would be the solution anyway, but I am not sure how it should look like.

Would you prefer a value (e.g. true, false) or a new operator?

I think that just the option for true/false would be enough. Maybe to make it consisted with others field where it is “is empty” and “exists” i would use that.

extra 1)
Also, i check what is currently in other fields and it seems like there is the bug with “common.queryOperators.in” that could be fixed as part of these changes too, i think.

extra 2)
There could also be something like “is in radius” / “is not in radius” when you select point on map and number for that radius. But this would require more UI changes

I added the notExists operator, but now I have my doubts that this is a good idea. Because you would have to do for all other operators as well.

So it is probably to improve the UI and add the “not” filter (or you can just use odata for that)

Now i am not sure if i understand it correctly.

Green’s one are: CompareFilter
Red’s one are: LogicalFilter

Is that correct?

To do that for all other operator you mean for green’s one? If so, is that because of implementation limitation or is that you think if there is one “there should be every option with !negated logic”?

Because there are already is equal to and is not equal to

What is about

“does not match”
“does not starts with”
“does not ends with”
“is not empty”
“is not in”

We would have to add operators for these as well. So it would be better to handle not in general. Perhaps with a small “not” in front of each row that can be toggled?

You do not necessarily need it for AND and OR, because

!(A and B) = !A or !B
!(A or B) = !A and !B

I like the “not” in front of the line. That would be super clean in my opinion.

1 Like

I have solved it like discussed:

1 Like