Hi, i have a problem with 'additional fields' and 'Data from Field'.
I have created an additional field, declared it 'searchable', 'sortable' and 'output' then i added it to the 'Data from Field'.
I rewalked my site, and when i look at the results of a query my extra field shows up in the XML output and contains the correct values but ...
in the walk settings 'index filed' list my field does not appear, and when i search for the value, the documents are not found.
In fact i have 4 profiles which are merged via replication into a global profile. The pages are coming from a dynamic web site and it is not possible to discriminate via the url (to use categories for example)
So i added an additional field lets say 'filingplan' which i populate via 'DATA from field'. Nothing subtle about it :
In all the profiles i have defined an additional fiel of type 'Integer' called 'filingplan'
In thr source profiles i have defined the 'data from field column like this :
Profile Search Replace Meta field which_field
PR1 .+ 1 URL Extra_Field1
PR2 .+ 2 URL Extra_Field1
PR3 .+ 4 URL Extra_Field1
PR4 .+ 8 URL Extra_Field1
So if i want to restrict research to 'pr1' in my destination profil, i simply specify &af1eq=1
The only problem i have, is that this does not allow to search several profiles at the same time. i'm not sure this is at all possible?
------------------------------------------------
Now that i got started here is a tougher question (i'm afraid i don't know anything about regexp).
I have documents which have nothing in the description field. So i would like to populate this filed from a <div> tag using the 'data from field'. Unfortunately so far i had no luck.
The text would contain something like this :
<DIV id="sla_shortdesc_desc">blah
blah</div>
(notice the (optional) new line in the middle.
I would like to get the 'blah blah' part displayed as the 'description'
Can anyone help with this? what do i need to put in the individual fields ?
Search Replace Meta field which_field
? ? ? ? description
Your regexp works fine except that somewhere on the way all diacritical marks are lost. In fact it looks like the data is not transcoded form the source charset (iso-8859-1) to the storage charset (utf-8).
We should have the charset issue fixed by mid-July.
For the Additional Fields, the only currently supported query operators are relational (equal, less than, etc.). You could use `&af1gte=1&af1lte=2' to match 1 or 2, but of course that method fails for non-consecutive or non-range values.