Page MenuHomePhabricator
Create Task
Maniphest T11943

Search results for Differential Revisions contains a displayed Date which can be confusing which date it is
Closed, WontfixPublic
Actions

Description

Search Differential Revisions ordering by Creation Date (Newest First). In the results, the date shown appears to always be the last updated date. This can result in results appearing out of order from how they're defined in the search query.

I reproduced this here on the GITTEST repository.

  1. Search by Creation Date (Newest First)
    • Screen Shot 2016-12-02 at 5.42.29 PM.png (425×897 px, 64 KB)
  2. View Initial Results
    • Note the "Update Pasta" revision which shows a date of Nov 6
    • Screen Shot 2016-12-02 at 5.41.34 PM.png (674×1 px, 116 KB)
  3. I commented on the revision to reference another commit in order to update the revision
    • Note the "Update Pasta" has today's date (Dec 2)
    • Screen Shot 2016-12-02 at 5.41.47 PM.png (694×1 px, 123 KB)

I think this is just a point of confusion as I was expecting the dates in the results to be the creation date that I specified in the query. Maybe a header or label that indicates it's the Updated Date would be useful.

Event Timeline

cspeckmim created this task.Dec 2 2016, 10:49 PM
cspeckmim updated the task description. (Show Details)EditedDec 2 2016, 10:53 PM

Sorry I accidentally hit Ctrl+Enter and submitted before completing the form

epriestley added subscribers: chad, epriestley.Dec 5 2016, 5:19 PM

I think we're currently consistent about showing updated date (Diffusion, Differential, Maniphest, Phriction index view).

I think the simplest way to resolve this confusion would be to remove the date completely. I'm not sure the date is particularly valuable -- I don't think I really use it for anything. We don't show it on global search results and have never received a request to add it there, I believe.

We could do something like "Created April 15" if the update date is the same, and "Updated April 15" if it differs, and put both dates on a tooltip to make this more clear. But that tends to add more clutter to the UI.

In this very narrow case, we could also change to show the created date contextually if the query specifies a creation date ordering. However, the default ordering is currently a creation date ordering which shows modified dates. Overall, I think having the UI change implicitly based on query parameters makes things too confusing and unpredictable.

I lean toward removing it completely and seeing how much pushback we get.

(@chad, not sure if you have any thoughts here.)

epriestley edited projects, added Feature Request; removed Bug Report.Dec 5 2016, 5:20 PM
epriestley added a comment.Dec 5 2016, 5:22 PM

(I don't consider is a bug: we're consistent about showing modified date across all applications which show a date, as far as I can tell, and omitting a label is a product decision.)

cspeckmim added a comment.Dec 5 2016, 5:42 PM

It doesn't happen frequently but I occasionally am looking for a recent change and use the field to narrow down where I'm looking (usually something like a change made in the past 3-6 months). Having the date field displayed in that case helps to know when I can stop scrolling/paging. Since the last updated date very often is near the created date I think it helps in most cases, but the scenario I came across with this task was that some older things had appeared towards the top because I added some commit <-> revision references recently.

I think removing the field or adding an "Updated:" label would both be solutions to the initial confusion, though my personal preference would be to show the contextually-ordered date (but more effort).

chad added a comment.Dec 5 2016, 5:59 PM

I don't see any ideas worth pursuing here unless we get evidence the confusion is more widespread.

epriestley closed this task as Wontfix.Dec 5 2016, 5:59 PM
epriestley claimed this task.

Good enough for me.

Phabricator · Built by Phacility