-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 32.6k
[select] Add Support typeahead when closed #48504
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Draft
atharva3333
wants to merge
6
commits into
mui:master
Choose a base branch
from
atharva3333:select-typeahead
base: master
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Loading
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Loading
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
+309
−0
Draft
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
6 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
f9135bd
implement typeahead for select
atharva3333 4f352c0
run prettier
atharva3333 db0ffdf
test lint
atharva3333 8360c0c
fix(Select): skip disabled items and subheaders in closed typeahead
atharva3333 a6d9a75
prettier and remove logs
atharva3333 a8f10c2
fix failing test
atharva3333 File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Oops, something went wrong.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This creates a whole new self-contained chunk of typeahead logic that is inconsistent with the existing (open typeahead) behaviors, I don't think this PR is going in right direction overall @atharva3333
Also noticed it incorrectly makes disabled items and non-interactive subheaders in grouped selects candidates for typeahead.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Could you clarify how you would prefer this issue to be approached?
Should the closed Select typeahead reuse/extend the existing MenuList typeahead behavior directly, rather than introducing separate matching/state logic inside SelectInput?
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I haven't thought about this too much yet
If you are still interested in working on this you could dig into the code a little deeper and use the original issue thread (not this PR) for questions/ideas etc
Have you tried to or considered it yourself?