I can imagine some use cases in which controlling the sort order in the frontend can be really helpful. Maybe it's a good idea to add a background hover to the dropdown.

@sakiss better keep your branch up to date ;)

I have tested this item ? unsuccessfully on 139672a

As well as the unanswered comment this PR can be marked as unsuccessful as you can not sort by relevance descending

I can imagine some use cases in which controlling the sort order in the frontend can be really helpful. Maybe it's a good idea to add a background hover to the dropdown.

@sakiss better keep your branch up to date ;)

The drop-down follows the styling and markup of the language module (possibly elsewhere too).

I have tested this item ✅ successfully on 4302393

@sakiss Is it correct that "Relevance" only has "descending"? All the other options have both.

@RickR2H Yes it is how it is designed (see description).
I cannot think of a case that a reasonable user sorts the items by "relevance ascending".
So this will only be displayed if "relevance ascending" is the default sorting option.

I have tested this item ✅ successfully on 4302393

RTC

This is not correct and should not be rtc #35993 (comment)

@brianteeman what exactly is not correct? Plz be clear.

1. Should not be possible to display a dropdwon when you have no shown fields

2. Should not display fields you have not selected

3. No label on the field to tell you what it is - instead of floating randomly on the page

4. Relevance

Makes no sense that you can sort by relevance ascending with these options

But not with these options

6. Expected to see these new options in the component options as well as the menu

1. Update: Done with: b724ae1
2. The default value is always added to the drop-down because otherwise the default selection will be irrelevant/out of context.
3. Added
4. I cannot think of any case that sorting by relevance ascending would make any sense. This is why it is shown only if is set as a default in the backend or is added in the shown fields (relevance with asc direction).
5. That would be great and was the 1st thing i developed.
   Unfortunately it turns out that multi-select parameters are not inherited properly. Instead of showing the selected values shows an "Array" string.

Revert RTC as it needs some rework

Changes applied

I still think its wrong that you can have a field shown in the dropdown that is not in the list of fields you mark as shown fields

No label on the field to tell you what it is - instead of floating randomly on the page

Added

Still dont see it

I still think its wrong that you can have a field shown in the dropdown that is not in the list of fields you mark as shown fields

Lets say that we are not including the default field in the 'shown fields' and then perform a search. You will notice the following:

1. What you get as the selected sorting field does not match the actual one.
2. Changing the sorting field to one of the shown does not let us go back to the default.

In short using a field without displaying it as an option seems a bit dissonant from the user point of view.

Still dont see it

check bf29cb2

Weirdly when I check out your branch it doesnt show that commit. Anyway I can see it here and it looks ok now - thanks

In short using a field without displaying it as an option seems a bit dissonant from the user point of view.

Perhaps but at the same time it is called "Shown Fields" and you are showing a field that is not there.

User has three fields as shown. They remove one and they still see three in the frontend.

Makes logical sense to a developer but not to a user

Perhaps but at the same time it is called "Shown Fields" and you are showing a field that is not there.
User has three fields as shown. They remove one and they still see three in the frontend.
Makes logical sense to a developer but not to a user

I agree, that it can be confusing for the admin.
My point is not related with the developer but the end user.
The front-end users will get something that seems buggy and partially functional.
Put yourself in the position of using a search engine that shows a wrong "sort by" field in the 1st place. How would you rate that UX?

@bembelimen could possibly decide on that.

Two options

1. Whatever you select in the "show field" is automatically added to the "shown field"
2. Change the text to "Additional sort fields" or something like that

I suppose you mean "sort field". This needs work way beyond that PR.
2 can be confusing too. Someone anticipates another "Shown field".

What about adding a description to the field that informs that the default is always there?

What about renaming the field to "Sort Fields".
Given that it shows only after the "Show Sort Fields" is enabled, becomes quite evident what is it about.
Also the default field is named "Sort Field", hence aggregating them seems valid.

I would appreciate your prompt feedback to catch up the feature freeze.

No. Thats the whole point of my comment. You have fields in the dropdown that are not in the selected field

Fine. I will go on by changing the label to "Additional Sort Fields".
Can we go on with that?

Fine. I will go on by changing the label to "Additional Sort Fields".
Can we go on with that?

I wouldnt have suggested it otherwise ;)

I have tested this item ✅ successfully on c072ff1

@ricardo1709 and @RickR2H Could you please test again?

I have tested this item ✅ successfully on c072ff1

RTC

I have tested this item ✅ successfully on c072ff1

@bembelimen do you consider merging that? Thanks

It's on the list, we just have to finish the current releases coming the next days.

So I checked this PR, the following things did I discover:

• Dropdown items do not use the "dropdown-item" class. (Then you don't need all this styling)
• The sort (in my opinion) still is "flying around" without any structure and in my opinion it should be above the filter:
  
• I wonder if "list_price" is ever used (I guess it's a placeholder for e.g. shops?). But when ordering by it, probably it should be displayed at the item? (and there is also a sale_price, shouldn't this added, too (if at all))

Dropdown items do not use the "dropdown-item" class. (Then you don't need all this styling)

I can do that but there will be small styling differences between that and other bs drop-downs e.g. the languages module.

The sort (in my opinion) still is "flying around" without any structure and in my opinion it should be above the filter:

IMO should be as close to the results as possible. The usual workflow is to be used after a search is performed.
Btw. This is the place where almost all major sites are using it.

I wonder if "list_price" is ever used (I guess it's a placeholder for e.g. shops?). But when ordering by it, probably it should be displayed at the item?

Yes i think they are placeholders for other types of content.
But sorting should not get confused with what is getting displayed in the results.
Also the results can be of different contexts and display different fields.

Sorry to be persistent but is there an interest on that?

@bembelimen plz let me know your thoughts on that

I gave you my thoughts:

• use default styling
• don't let it fly around (of there is no other way than that, do it above the filters)
• if using list_price then also use sale_price, too

1. Use bootstrap "dropdown-item" class.
2. Moved the drop-down inside the results area.
3. The scope of that PR, is to let the user set the ordering based on the already used sort field options (see "sort field" param).
   I suggest adding additional fields in a separate PR.

@bembelimen Could you please update the status on this PR? Is RTC still valid?

Hi there.
In 2 days I make a presentation about customizing the Smart Search (Joomla NEXT session organized by Techjoomla).

I saw that the other PR (adding the possibility to add the Intro Image in the Smart Search Results Page) is indeed available in J4.1-rc4.

But I did not see the effect of the current PR :)

Will it not be merged for 4.1?
I had the impression it was ready.
Txs

Unfortunately It's not merged so it has to wait until 4.2 I guess...

@roland-d Are you interested in merging that in J4.2?

Speaking about Sorting, it could also be an opportunity to investigate further this "sort by List Price" which has been there since 2.5 but does not do anything apparently. See https://issues.joomla.org/tracker/joomla-cms/37112

@woluweb Since Finder is component agnostic, allows the use of other possible variables that could be used by 3rd parties. Such variable is the "List Price", which i suppose can be utilized by e-commerce related extensions.

@sakiss I am interested to include this in 4.2 but I do have the same reservations as Benjamin:

• Move the filter to the top of the page
  

  Like here is what I mean:
  

• The sale_price needs to be added if you are adding the list_price. We can add these fields even if they are odd. Users won't use them but since they are in core who wants to use them can.

Hey @roland-d thanks for looking at that.

1. In most cases, the sorting field is placed below the search/filters and above the results.
   You can see that in all major e-commerce sites (amazon, ebay) and in blogs.
   If i am not mistaken, the same applies in your screenshot.

2. I used the existing sorting fields. The PR just intends to provide sorting functionality to the front-end using the fields that Joomla already uses. I find adding extra fields, beyond the scope of the PR but if you find it crucial i can add them.

Hey @sakiss

1. You are right, my screenshots are confusing. The arrow is wrong, too high. However the filter is now floating to the right and is not below the search field. Can you fix that?
2. I do want the sale_price added as well as it is a small change but will be consistent with the fields that exist.

thanks @roland-d

1. Could you please indicate me how you would like this to be? Btw. It is at the top-end of the results where you will find it in most apps/sites. Consider that this is a tool for the results themselves and should not be confused with the filters.
2. Ok i can do that. Do note that the sales_price does not exist and never existed in any Joomla setting. It only resides in the database.

My 2cents: sale_price is not used anywhere.
It is only visible in the backend so, somehow, it was not causing any harm bc nobody would see it.

But if we start showing this in the front-end, then please tell also how to hide it after!
This field seems to be there "in case some 3rd party extension would decide to use it".
I definitely don't want (nobody wants) to see "sale_price" if it does not exist: the visitors would get completely lost :D

@woluweb We will not be showing it in the front-end by default. The user has to specifically select that field to make it show up in the front-end.

@sakiss

1. I am thinking like this. That is how I see it on the major ecommerce sites you mentioned.
   

2. I am aware of that but what is important to me is that we offer the use of this field and if someone uses this field, they cannot select it.

@roland-d

1. Are you ok if we put it below the "Assuming abc ..."?
   I think it should be close to the results.

2. What if i create another PR for that?
   Among others we will not have to ask for re-testing which is done several times already.

@sakiss

1. That is fine by me
2. This needs retesting anyway as the sale_price still needs to be added. Let's make these 2 changes and after that it can be tested and merged.

@roland-d What's your intention on that?

@sakiss This PR looks fine to me now.
@Hackwar Can you give this a check to see if it is OK?

This pull requests has been automatically converted to the PSR-12 coding standard.

Hi,
This week-end I was at JoomlaDay D-A-CH and made my presentation about "customizing the Smart Search Results Page".
Actually I was convinced that the current PR had been merged with J4.2...
But when I came to the topic here https://slides.woluweb.be/smartsearch/smartsearch.html#5-2-in-the-front-end I realized that it had not yet been merged :D

I don't think that there is any more reason to wait.
Could we please merge this PR so that we finally get it in J4.3?
Txs for your feedback/approval @roland-d @Hackwar @obuisard :)

And txs again @sakiss -who was also present at #jd22dach- for writing this PR! (and for the other ones related to Smart Search like adding the Image etc).

@sakiss did you added the changes and is the PR ready? @roland-d Do we have to reset the tests?

@woluweb This also fell off my radar but has to be rebased to 4.3 so @obuisard can pick it up and merge. The tests should be reset @RickR2H as you have a new base and it will be good to get things tested just to be sure. If nothing comes up, it would be easy tests.

@roland-d can you set the unresolved conversation to resolved? Tests are reset, @ricardo1709 @woluweb please test again.

Thank you all for the follow ups, I added the 4.3 label.

I have tested this item ✅ successfully on c072ff1

Excellent!
Works fine (see the demo here https://subform.joomlacustomfields.org/search?q=lorem)
It is very nice that you can select the Fields that you want (or not) in the dropdown, namely

• Title
• Relevance
• Date
• List price
• Sales price

  ---

  _{This comment was created with the J!Tracker Application at issues.joomla.org/tracker/joomla-cms/35993.}

I have tested this item ✅ successfully on c072ff1

Filters work as expected!

RTC

Thank you for this PR, could you please document the new options (I believe this page is appropriate: https://docs.joomla.org/Help310:Menus_Menu_Item_Finder_Search)

Hello Sakis @sakiss, do you need help with documentation? Would love to see this PR merged soon for public testing.

Hi @obuisard . The page you mention is for J3. If you indicate the page and how to add the changes, i am keen to help.
Also if anyone else wants to help with the docs is welcome. I already invested a lot of time on that.

@obuisard Plz let me know if this can be merged or otherwise what else should be done.

@obuisard Plz let me know if this can be merged or otherwise what else should be done.

Hi Sakis @sakiss, I have requested some help to better assist you with user documentation. I am waiting on a reply. I will let you know what can be done with documentation once I have proper information. Thank you for your patience and have great holidays ?

This is the correct page to update
https://docs.joomla.org/Help4.x:Menus_Menu_Item_Search_Results

I have involved the documentation team for the PRs that require user documentation, as it needs approval for editing the wiki, which is a road block for now.

Why is the sort order not being appended to the search bar as in all backend search bars?

That page is for the old Search component. It is not present in J4. There is no Help page for frontend results.

That page is for the old Search component. It is not present in J4. There is no Help page for frontend results.

The only corresponding page I could find is https://docs.joomla.org/Help4.x:Menus_Menu_Item_Finder_Search

The explanation for frontend results needs to be put on that page, like it was done for https://docs.joomla.org/Help310:Menus_Menu_Item_Search_Results

That page is for the old Search component. It is not present in J4. There is no Help page for frontend results.

The only corresponding page I could find is https://docs.joomla.org/Help4.x:Menus_Menu_Item_Finder_Search

The explanation for frontend results needs to be put on that page, like it was done for https://docs.joomla.org/Help310:Menus_Menu_Item_Search_Results

Actually, the corresponding page is https://docs.joomla.org/Help310:Menus_Menu_Item_Finder_Search and that does not mention a frontend view. Such a view would be useful. But, I think this requirement to have documentation in place before merging a pull request is unworkable. I have an idea for how to do something about it but it is not ready yet.

Changes already document at https://docs.joomla.org/Help4.x:Menus_Menu_Item_Search_Results

Changes already document at https://docs.joomla.org/Help4.x:Menus_Menu_Item_Search_Results

That file is not used in Joomla 4 (I should have made that clearer previously). This is the file used for the Smart Search menu item:

https://docs.joomla.org/Help4.x:Menu_Item:_Search

Changes already document at https://docs.joomla.org/Help4.x:Menus_Menu_Item_Search_Results

That file is not used in Joomla 4 (I should have made that clearer previously). This is the file used for the Smart Search menu item:

https://docs.joomla.org/Help4.x:Menu_Item:_Search

https://docs.joomla.org/Help4.x:Menus_Menu_Item_Finder_Search and https://docs.joomla.org/Help4.x:Menu_Item:_Search is the same page BUT it could show the frontend view info, like it has been done for https://docs.joomla.org/Help310:Menus_Menu_Item_Search_Results

Okay, now we got the right doc (Chunk) to override: https://docs.joomla.org/Chunk4x:Help_screen_column_header_Sort_Field

Documentation added ✔️

Thank you Sakis @sakiss for this PR!

@sakiss, could you take a couple of minutes of your time and explain what is the fundamental difference between Sales price and List price? I am engaged in translation and have not even figured out yet how best to translate it so that it is understandable to users. Thank you.

In the context of the search )) Of course, the translation without the search is understandable.

@sakiss, could you take a couple of minutes of your time and explain what is the fundamental difference between Sales price and List price? I am engaged in translation and have not even figured out yet how best to translate it so that it is understandable to users. Thank you.

In the context of the search )) Of course, the translation without the search is understandable.

This is a Joomla string which has been there "forever".
See here the information I could gather about that: https://slides.woluweb.be/smartsearch/smartsearch.html#par_51

@woluweb Thanks for the hint, now it's clearer that the parameter means nothing )). Of course, this is a success: to add SOMETHING for user management that cannot and could not work, but only confuses.

Settings are still there due to backwards compatibility. They can be removed in J5.

@Kostelano keep in mind that the Smart Search is designed to work with different types of content (not just articles)