Skip to content
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

Add search summary pattern #65

Merged
merged 4 commits into from
May 11, 2015
Merged

Add search summary pattern #65

merged 4 commits into from
May 11, 2015

Conversation

tombye
Copy link
Contributor

@tombye tombye commented May 8, 2015

The intention should be for the summary to always start with 'Count services found in lot' and for the rest of the sentence to comprise of the filters applied, each with their own preposition and conjunctions.

For example, the following consists of the following filter sentences:

filter name preposition plural of the filter group name options preposition conjunction*
under the categories and
with a minimum contract period of an or a

For filter options of more than 2, the conjunction listed would only feature at the end with all other options joined by commas.

search-summary

font-weight: bold;
}

.count {
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Could this be .search-summary-count to match our naming conventions?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Good point, fixed in edef4c1

quis added a commit that referenced this pull request May 11, 2015
@quis quis merged commit c0ceaf0 into master May 11, 2015
@quis quis deleted the add-search-summary-pattern branch May 11, 2015 09:22
quis added a commit that referenced this pull request May 11, 2015
Adds:
- #65 Add search summary pattern
- #64 Add service ID as a pattern
quis added a commit that referenced this pull request May 12, 2015
Turns out that #65 was a breaking change because it rearranged the file structure.

I propose bumping the version to 3.0.0 and withdrawing 2.1.0.
@quis quis mentioned this pull request May 12, 2015
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants