Description: So you can find something if you have many documents and don't know which specific one contains what you need Additionally, this window doesn't seem to be accessible from an opened document and you have to open the app icon to open it. If I understand it correctly, I wish there was such an ability Steps to Reproduce: 1.. 2. 3. Actual Results: . Expected Results: . Reproducible: Always User Profile Reset: No Additional Info: .
Created attachment 204308 [details] Screenshot
ODF archive documents are not directly searchable. The archive must first be accessed (unzipped) and then text content parsed. Opening, searching in each archive document on the Recent documents MRU in sequence is non-performant. While searching in a single document is no issue for any os/DE that can do so, and on Windows builds the LibreOffice delivers the optional 'Windows Explorer Extension' which preprocesses document indexing--allowing WDM os/DE search from the Windows File Explorer. To extent that LibreOffice can "facilitate" indexing, we should. Beyond that, a multi-document search is out of scope. =-notes-= See also regards config/operation of ODF indexing by WDM os/DE. https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=100879 https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=130320
(In reply to V Stuart Foote from comment #2) > ODF archive documents are not directly searchable. The archive must first be > accessed (unzipped) and then text content parsed. Opening, searching in each > archive document on the Recent documents MRU in sequence is non-performant. > > While searching in a single document is no issue for any os/DE that can do > so, and on Windows builds the LibreOffice delivers the optional 'Windows > Explorer Extension' which preprocesses document indexing--allowing WDM os/DE > search from the Windows File Explorer. > > To extent that LibreOffice can "facilitate" indexing, we should. Beyond > that, a multi-document search is out of scope. > > =-notes-= > See also regards config/operation of ODF indexing by WDM os/DE. > > https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=100879 > https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=130320 I don't disagree, that sounds reasonable. The idea is good, but seems to be no way to do it
(In reply to V Stuart Foote from comment #2) > ODF archive documents are not directly searchable. The archive must first be > accessed (unzipped) and then text content parsed. Opening, searching in each > archive document on the Recent documents MRU in sequence is non-performant. > > While searching in a single document is no issue for any os/DE that can do > so, and on Windows builds the LibreOffice delivers the optional 'Windows > Explorer Extension' which preprocesses document indexing--allowing WDM os/DE > search from the Windows File Explorer. > > To extent that LibreOffice can "facilitate" indexing, we should. Beyond > that, a multi-document search is out of scope. > > =-notes-= > See also regards config/operation of ODF indexing by WDM os/DE. > > https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=100879 > https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=130320 But what if there was at least a search for document titles? That's something that the hardware can handle. And so it also shows the icons of results that mirror the pages (as shown in the screenshot)
You can search in the template manager but not at the start center. I think this would be a nice enhancement assuming the use case of many files.
(In reply to Heiko Tietze from comment #5) > You can search in the template manager but not at the start center. I think > this would be a nice enhancement assuming the use case of many files. I think I should mark this report as invalid as mark my newer report as valid, because it's the same but more detailed I'll add y'all to CC https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=169717
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 160717 ***
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 169717 ***
(In reply to Xisco Faulí from comment #8) > > *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 169717 *** I've been told that same reports from same users should not be marked as duplicates to avoid skewing statistics, and they should be marked as invalid instead. I will mark this report as invalid