Question about report filtering and display of unwanted data

Hello Solomiia,
I hope you're doing well. I wanted to discuss some doubts related to the functioning of filters in Flexmonster.

1.  Saving the report edited by the user: When using the "getReport()" function to save the report edited by the user, I would like to confirm if this configuration is done only through coding or if it can also be done directly through Flexmonster.
2.  Invalid filter and alert: I noticed that when a filter is considered invalid, the entire result of the report is altered, showing data that should not be presented. I would like to understand why an alert is not displayed informing that the filter is invalid.

I appreciate your response and guidance in advance.
Best regards,
Willians Cirilo

Hello Solomiia,
I apologize for my previous expression:
Regarding the first question, my doubt is about the usage described in https://www.flexmonster.com/doc/advanced-tips-filtering/#show-empty-grid-when-filtering-by-non-existent-members. It mentions the use of the include property and query: { equal: "" }, but by default, Flexmonster uses the members property.
As for the second question, I appreciate the suggestion of displaying an alert message. However, as I mentioned before, the report is dynamically generated by the end user. Therefore, I need a generic alert as I don't know which filter the user will use to indicate the field.
Once again, thank you for your help and response.
Best regards, Willians Cirilo

Hello Solomiia,
I hope you're doing well.
In fact, we only use the default filter from the UI pop-up. This filter meets the needs of most use cases and provides a simplified experience for our users.
If you have any suggestions you would like to share with us, please don't hesitate to let us know. We are always looking for ways to improve and meet the needs of our users.
Thank you for your attention and collaboration.
Best regards, Willians Cirilo

Hello Solomiia,
I hope you're doing well.
Your example meets our needs. Thank you very much for your attention and collaboration.
Best regards, Willians Cirilo

Hello, Solomiia,

Thank you for reaching out and for introducing the new functionality in Flexmonster. I'm happy to see continuous improvements in the tool.

I’ve had a chance to explore the new filter.allowEmptyMembersFilter option, and it fits perfectly with my current use case, as I primarily work with CSV data sources. This addition is very welcome and simplifies the implementation significantly compared to the workaround we used previously.

However, I noticed one point that might need further consideration. When applying a filter with filter.allowEmptyMembersFilter enabled, the filter UI does not display the members that are present in the members array. This could potentially lead to some confusion, as the filter doesn’t visually reflect the selected members. It would be helpful if the filter UI could somehow indicate the members being filtered, even if they don't exist in the dataset.

Please let me know if there is any additional configuration to address this, or if it’s something planned for future releases. Once again, I appreciate the update and the opportunity to provide feedback.

Kind regards,

Willians

Hello Solomiia,

Thank you for your ongoing support with this case and for introducing the new filter.allowEmptyMembersFilter functionality. It's truly a valuable addition that significantly simplifies handling filters with non-existent members.

However, I'd like to report an unusual behavior I observed during testing with this new option. When I configure a filter like:

filter: {

    exclude: ["color.[red]", "color.[orange]"]

}

And these color members don't exist in the dataset, Flexmonster appears to automatically convert the filter to:

filter: {

    members: ["color.[red]", "color.[orange]"]

}

This automatic alteration of the filter structure can be confusing, especially when working with dynamic data where datasets may vary.

I've created a demonstration that illustrates this behavior:  

https://jsfiddle.net/bmy7wqj9/

When I use setData1 (which contains data matching the filter), the filter structure correctly remains as:

filter: {exclude: ["color.[red]","color.[orange]"]}

However, when I use setData2 (which does **not** contain the filter data), Flexmonster automatically changes it to:

filter: {members: ["color.[red]","color.[orange]"]}

My main question is: Is there any additional configuration to preserve the original filter structure (exclude) even when the filtered members don't exist in the dataset?

This preservation would be important to maintain consistency in saved reports and the filtering logic defined by the user, regardless of the data currently present.

Thank you for your attention, and I look forward to your response.

Best regards,

Willians Cirilo

Hello, Solomiia!

Thank you very much for your message and for keeping me informed about the next steps.

I will be awaiting your return by November 10th, as informed.

Have a great day!

Best regards,
Willians Cirilo

Hello Solomiia,

To assist the Dev team's analysis, I would like to complement that the same behavior also occurs in pivot.getReport().slice.reportFilters, and I've noticed inconsistencies when multiple 'exclude' filters are applied simultaneously - the conversion to 'members' doesn't happen consistently in all cases. It's worth mentioning that these inconsistencies manifested in varied ways across different saved reports during our testing.

As I'm not deeply familiar with the tool's intricacies, I believe your team may better identify if there are other areas where filters could be affected - you're probably already considering this in your analysis.

These additional details might be helpful for a more comprehensive investigation.

I look forward to the November 10th ETA.

Best regards,
Willians Cirilo