[Serusers] Re: [Serdev] New search-page

Yes, this looks good. I agree with Jan that we maybe can simplify a bit. Here are some additional suggestions that you might want to consider: - Instead of having three panes, just link to the documentation. I think this makes it easier to get the iptel.org menus and context. People can decide themselves if they want to open a new tab, window or whatever using shortcuts in their browsers - The search form may be simplified a bit, either by removing fields or making a Advanced >> link that shows more options - I think version of ser and module, as well as type of entity are useful. Whether we need input parameters and flags? I think they are more for developers and (if necessary) could be put on the advanced form. The name of the entity is a bit like free text search I feel? - The flag field could be a drop down field with the available flags, or checkboxes for each flag. I don't think people know what the flags are (except the developers) - Maybe name of entity and free text search could be merged into one? I'm not sure if we want to search across anything else than the name of function or param? I think it would be useful to search in name, for example you get type in "radius" to get all functions, params, and RPC calls with radius in the name - If the form is dynamic, do we need a Submit button at all? - If we only have the search form and the output table, it would be nice to have a horizontal "search bar" instead of a vertical form. With the dynamic update one can quickly add for example parameters to get an overview etc - I think the parameter flag is relevant in the output table, and the flags should probably be listed in textual form. Or maybe even better, each flag represents a specific property, so there could be one column per param flag that is ticked off if the flag is set? This way we could quickly see if a function is allowed in onreply route, failure route etc. The drawback is that the search app has to be updated if more flags are added - I think the column name "Param Flag" is a bit confusing. I assume this is the number of parameters that the function takes? So it is not a flag, the flags identify in which parts of ser.cfg the various functions can be used. - I think we can start with a web 2.0 app and then see if it makes sense to create something else or maybe just save static outputs that people can view - I don't think we currently have any marks (#ref) in the html output of the module docs. But I assume the stylesheet can be adapted. Jan, is this possible? - I don't think the app will be able to know if the documentation is missing. Only when following the link, the user will be brought to either just to the module doc or, with #refs, to the right location in module docs, and the user will discover that something is missing. So, I think we need a "Report missing or insufficient documentation"-link for each element in the table. Maybe that can be done by creating a form out of the table, a checkbox at the beginning of each row, a comment field at the bottom, and a "Submit missing or insuffient documentation report" button at the bottom - And finally, I disagree with Jan on the drupal integration. Maybe we will want to include searchable html docs as part of an install package, on another website, or we may (heavens no) switch system. I think we will be able to get the headers, menus etc the same way we have made the module docs (by embedding code as content on a drupal page). Integration is the root of all evil and the more independent we can make this, the better, IMHO g-) Jan Janak wrote: