[TC 11.50b5] Search: search for \**\ only does not work

[white]

In the search for pattern, using \**\ in a path generally works OK. It works when \**\ is used anywhere in the path, or when **\ is used at the start. However, the pattern on its own does not work.

For example, searching for the patterns:

Code: Select all

**\
\**\

give no results. I expect the same result as searching for:

Code: Select all

*\

(traverse all folders, don't skip anything)

[ghisler(Author)]

This makes no sense, so it's not supported.

Moderator message from: ghisler(Author) » 2024-11-10, 10:31 UTC

Moved to will not be changed

[white]

This makes no sense, so it's not supported.

As you should know by now, I do not like to let a bad argument go by. I think you meant to say: "I do not think this is important enough to change it." What you said instead, does not make sense.

If searching for **\ or \**\ does not make sense, then *\ also makes no sense and should also be not supported and should also give no results. The same when searching for the * and *.* patterns. Your inconsistency makes no sense.

And just because it doesn't make sense to you, does not mean that it does not makes sense to the user. For example, the user may enter this to verify that this special wildcard does indeed do what the users thinks it does. Or he may want to temporarily change an expression which includes more than that. He may want to deliberately change a pattern temporarily to traverse all folders and then change it again to limit the search again.

[ghisler(Author)]

I mean, why would you put that in the search field when just giving the file types like *.txt would already search all subdirectories? It makes no sense at all.

[white]

I mean, why would you put that in the search field when just giving the file types like *.txt would already search all subdirectories? It makes no sense at all.

I already gave you 2 examples. Testing and verification: These patterns might be used for testing or verifying search behavior. Temporary modifications: Users might temporarily modify complex search patterns for troubleshooting or adjusting their searches.

I think you are asking the wrong question. The question should not be: Why would the user do that. The relevant question is: Why shouldn't it work. The behavior is inconsistent and unexpected.