I like the idea that both search components should have the same layout. This pr is close but still not identical

Search

Smart search

Well, I really not like the layout of com_search. I Like more the compact mode of com_finder, Title, Text and maybe the URL.
So, I test this PR and work ok, but not sure if this PR is more like an RFC or for add this reworking layout.

I will see what I can do to incorporate your comment @carlitorweb

Thank you :). Is just my opinion about it.

Some update for this one @Hackwar ?

I will. I just need some more time. The priority of this PR is rather low.

The priority of this PR is rather low.

Yes I know

I've updated this PR and consider this now feature-complete. I would call this an passable generalised result layout, which now can display the different taxonomies, the date of the item and the URL besides the title and the description. If somebody has a good solution to get a spacer between the search results, I'm all ears.

While implementing the taxonomies, it became apparent that we want to control which of these to display and which to hide. In theory the taxonomies support publish/unpublish states and even the access modifiers. However right now the taxonomies are stored inside the serialized FinderIndexerResult object and are not updated when retrieving the search results or when changing the taxonomies in the backend. Besides that, the taxonomies are lacking a GUI to modify the access modifiers. I plan to rework the taxonomies, too, and would address those issues there.

Happy testing.

BEFORE

AFTER

The highlighted word inside a badge no looks so good. My personal opinion, I hate that "highlight" stuff in a search result. For me, a clean result page as much as possible can be, is better for the user can find faster what they looking for.

A way I like to see a search results page is having, for example, something like this:

Can be rows with 2 column or 3 depending on the layout.

@carlitorweb I agree sort of with you. This is definitely not the ultimate search result layout, but I guess it is the best compromise that we can have here. Anyway, thanks for testing. I will fix the conflict and then it would be nice if you could mark this as successfully tested. ?

This is definitely not the ultimate search result layout

I know buddy, just was sharing with you my thought. Waiting for the commit, for put the test.

Conflicts fixed.

I have tested this item ✅ successfully on 4dea366

I have tested this item ✅ successfully on 4dea366

RTC

Thank you!

Fixed the conflict by the merge of #20681. Do we have to retest all of this or can we simply merge this?

I have tested this item ✅ successfully on b1787b6

Thanks :)