Stop automatically adding parenthesis to filter logic in report builder

@Azad it would probably be better to let the Admin determine the logic rather than have the tool try to make assumptions. Nothing irritates me quite as much as when I am trying to create or modify an asset and it makes an assumption that does not match my intention.

 

 

@TMaier  - Here is the example - There are three  things happening here 

 

1. There are no unneccessary parenthesis being added 
2. As soon as you Open a parenthesis the cursor move ahead one step to allow you to start typing in the sub clause space 
3. A closed parenthesis is also added right after your cursor moves ahead so that you do not have to add one yourself. 

When Gainsight allows us to write actual code, having a plug-in to Atom Text editor would be great as that could to the heavy lifting, and has tons of customization on automatically closing brackets, customizing common things, etc. However, writing out Gainsight logic is a bit fiddley as it is as we’re limited to AND and Or statements in one line, so predictively adding this as @darkknight and @TMaier has pointed out will be an overcomplication that will create more problems than it solves.

A simple validation on save noting that a pair isn’t closed is really all that’s needed, which was what we already had. @Azad 

@bradley  - the team is looking into modifying this behaviour. 

@Azad Any update on this? It isn’t limited to HA dashboards, but shows up in rules and pretty much everywhere and is actually anti-helpful.

@anirbandutta this continues to vex me in every area of the platform trying to update complex logic, is this still being looked at or considered?

@Prateek Parashar would you be able to share where we are at with this?

Could we please get an update on this? Would be AWESOME if this could come to Horizon features across the product.

@revathimenon T_T

Here’s an actual example of how dangerous this behavior can be. If I had not reviewed and corrected this issue, I’d have introduced bad config to this rule - what I NEED is “(A OR B) AND C” but when adding C we get the following…

Before...

After adding C…

Here’s an actual example of how dangerous this behavior can be. If I had not reviewed and corrected this issue, I’d have introduced bad config to this rule - what I NEED is “(A OR B) AND C” but when adding C we get the following…

 

Before...

 

After adding C…

 

This makes me batty!  Thank you for sharing.