-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 8.3k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Options list control should not search on formatted numbers #102043
Comments
Pinging @elastic/kibana-app-services (Team:AppServices) |
Probably related: #83858 |
Pinging @elastic/kibana-presentation (Team:Presentation) |
Pinging @elastic/kibana-vis-editors @elastic/kibana-vis-editors-external (Team:VisEditors) |
Removing viseditors label as this is about input controls owned by the presentation team |
Related to #126795 Closing - while this is something to consider when we implement number fields in the new options list control, the old input controls are now deprecated and therefore this will not be fixed there 👍 |
Kibana version: 7.13.1
Describe the bug:
If we create an (experimental) "options list" control in the visualization app, then the
format:number:defaultPattern
is applied to this control. While this is feasible when displaying data, it is not when searching for data.For example, looking at the Kibana sample logs data
machine.ram
field, which is a number, in a format like20401094656
:It is displayed in the control with a thousands separator (
,
):The problem is that when searching for a value, for which I would intuitively use the raw value, we now need to provide the formatted value as otherwise it does not match:
The workaround is to change the
format:number:defaultPattern
in the Kibana advanced settings from the default0,0.[000]
to00.[000]
:Since this setting is Kibana global and affects other features as well (where the behavior is indeed desired), I think that this should be changed. Either do not apply number formation to search fields or make them more lenient when searching for the raw-values. Not sure if this is perhaps related to #39211.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: