Hello,
It is Ok for the first question now regarding the second question,
Metafields are stored as comma separated values, is it possible to seach each value ?
Thank you
Nigel
Supporter
Languages:
English (English )
Spanish (Español )
Timezone:
Europe/London (GMT+00:00)
This should work if you use LIKE for your comparison when inserting the filter control. See screenshot.
Hello
Thank you it works except if i change from :
>> Full page refresh when visitors click on the search button
To
>> AJAX results update when visitors click on the search button
Option
Thank you
Nigel
Supporter
Languages:
English (English )
Spanish (Español )
Timezone:
Europe/London (GMT+00:00)
Try updating the settings to always show all values for inputs.
Thank you Nigel for your patience, I think it will be my last question about this seach (I think it is not an easy question !)
As it was mentionned before, I'm trying to search in repeatable acf pro metafields.
I have found a workaound :
Instead of searching repeatable acf metafields, we have convert these repeater sub fields to standard WP meta fields and then to search the posts using these converted values (meta key is not unique and can have more then one value : using with last parmeter as "false" : add_post_meta($post_id, $meta_key, $color, false);)
I have a travel cpt with some offers attached to it (using the repeatable fields)
TRAVEL1 has 2 offers attached to it
offer1 : expiry date : date1 , attributs : yoga, kids
offer2 : expiry date: date2, attributs : family,sport,spa
If I search with using next criterias :
date= expiry date1 and attributs = kids, the search return TRAVEL1 wich is correct
but when we search :
date= expiry date1 and attributs = spa, the search also return TRAVEL1
wich is not very correct !
Thank you
It seems you are talking about a new issue, on a new URL, and another View.
On the URL here I see no such search criteria:
hidden link
As well, I do not know what "expiry date1" should be.
Please open a new ticket for the specific issue you encounter.
I also have to discourage the usage of ACF fields in Views.
As Nigel already repeatedly pointed out, only simple fields will work, and we do not provide any form of integration with ACF.
The suggested plugin to create your content structures and use them in Views is Toolset Types.
ACF Fields will break in Toolset as soon they are complex.
Moreover, we have no control over the changes done eventually in future to those fields, hence we cannot even guarantee that "simple" fields will continue to work.
If these get updated and changed by ACF, they could become more than simple fields and break.
I do not say it won't work, there is obviously a workaround for everything, but it is not the approach suggested - because you will run into issues doing so.
I suggest using Toolset Types.
Let us analyse the specific View issue in a new thread, where you can link us to the specific URL and provide the exact testing steps?
Thank you.
Hello Beda,
At the begining this website was using Types and Views before i decide to migrate to ACF Pro for metafields.
I haven't like how types was handling relationship, I think there is a new version now, but i don't know its features.
Why I migrate to ACF Pro ?
When we need to add new features to an existing website, we choose tools that we can use easily to acheive or goal.
I have to do a quotation system, wich fill metafields with existing cpt offers (using acf pro relationship and ajax)
All my different cpt are done from frontend using acf pro form
To do quotation, i found some existing scripts to use, doing this with Types will be : This job cannot be handled by support, it is a custom development ....
Adding, modifying cpt from frontend was done is one line but with Toolset we have to add CRED and ...
Thank you
I understand
But I do not understand how we can help you.
ACF complex fields do not work with Toolset.
Custom Code is required to solve this (if it ever will be solved with it, which I doubt, as I did several such tests in my past and never had 100% satisfying results, as well other users confirm this).
The last issue you report is eventually related to a View Query, but I do not know how to replicate, that is why I asked the addon details, which eventually should be shared in a new ticket.
Creating a new ticket you avoid to end up with a very long thread which is confusing and not to be followed successfully by other users either, or you later on in future.
Toolset Types now has a much-improved relationships system, yes, but this is still in beta.
You can see more about it here:
https://toolset.com/account/downloads/ > beta
Please, could you indicate where and how we can replicate the issue you report?
If possible, this should be done in a new ticket as it is clearly not any more related to the same fields and views involved in the initial report of this ticket.
Thank you
Hello
When I try to open a new ticket, Minesh is proposed as support not you !
If you want to test, you can use the same credentials as in this ticket with this url :
hidden link
Thank you
I am not a supporter.
I cover Nigel while he is on vacation.
Usually, I do work in our Secon Tier Support, assisting my colleagues when they need help.
It is an exception that I reply here.
The issue must be reported in a new ticket.
Each step to achieve the issue must be outlined.
Please as well add the login details to the new ticket, there is an option to do so.
If the steps are not clear on the ticket, the assigned supporter will ask for them.
Please mention precisely what you expect to happen where, after what actions, step by step.
Our Supporters will not know your website the way you do and will need a little guidance to replicate the issue.
Then, they can apply their knowledge, help you solve it straight away or detect a BUG and report it to us in the Second Tier or Developers directly.
I apologise for this inconvenience, I am sure you will understand why I suggest opening a new, detailed ticket about this issue once you re-read this very ticket here in 6 months 🙂
It is much easier for all of us to have short topics, especially when issue and replication path is not the same as the opening comments.
