DestroyedSoul

DestroyedSoul

Hello,

I am trying to implement more or less basic search screen. I use Phoenix/LiveView.
I’ve come across an issue that means either I chose the wrong approach, or I suck with forms (most likely - both).

The screen is super simple at this point: search bar in the middle, filters to the right, search results in the middle.
I put all three of these elements into the single form, like this:

<div class="container">
  <.form
    for={@search_form}
    phx-change="apply_filters"
    phx-submit="search"
    class="..."
  >
    <.search_bar field={@search_form[:query]} />

    <div class="flex flex-col md:flex-row">
      <!-- Filters Column -->
      <div class="...">
        <.filters_section
          form={@search_form}
          filter1={filter1_list()}
          filter2 ={filter2_list()}
          filter3 ={filter3_list()}
        />
      </div>
      <!-- Search Results Column -->
      <div class="w-full md:w-3/4">
        <.search_results results={@results} />
      </div>
    </div>
  </.form>
</div>

filter1, filter2, filter3 is sections on the right side of the screen, each consisting of several options. Consider, the list of brands, for example, list of locations etc. They all are multi selects.

My idea is to build the screen from the endpoint. The endpoint would look something like /search?q="..."&f1=...&f2=...
So, I put this into the live view code (for now, ignoring filters, only supporting query)

def mount(_params, _session, socket) do
    socket =
      socket
      |> assign(search_form: to_form(Search.make_search_form()))
      |> assign(:results, [])

    {:ok, socket}
  end

  def handle_params(params, _uri, socket) do
    query = params["q"] || ""
    
    filters = []

    search_form = Search.make_search_form(query, filters)

    socket =
      socket
      |> update(:search_form, fn _ -> to_form(search_form, as: :search_form) end)
      |> update(:results, fn _ -> search_results(search_form) end) # this builds and executes Ecto query returning the list of results

    {:noreply, socket}
  end

Then, when the search button is pressed I do this:

def handle_event("search", %{"search_form" => search_form}, socket) do
    {:noreply, push_patch(socket, to: "/search?#{build_search_query(search_form)}")}
  end

defp build_search_query(search_form) do
    filter1 = []
    filter2 = []
    filter3 = []

    "q=#{search_form["query"]}&f1=#{filter1}&f2=#{filter2}&f3=#{filter3}"
  end

So far, this works ok. The search bar has the correct text at all times, the results are filtered properly, the filters checkboxes are enabled and disabled (UI-wise) without any problems.
The multi-select is implemented like this:

  attr :form, Phoenix.HTML.Form, required: true
  attr :field, Phoenix.HTML.FormField, required: true
  attr :options, :list, required: true

  defp multi_select(assigns) do
    ~H"""
    <div class="...">
      <%= for option <- @options do %>
        <label class="...">
          <input
            type="checkbox"
            name={"#{input_name(@form, @field.field)}[]"}
            value={option}
            checked={option in @field.value}
            class="..."
          />
          <span class="...">{option}</span>
        </label>
      <% end %>
    </div>
    """
  end

and is added to the parent tag like this:

  <div>
        <h3 class="...">Filter Name, e.g. Brands</h3>
        <.multi_select
          form={@form}
          field={@form[:param1]}
          options={@filter1}
        />
     </div>

So far, so good.
Now, I would like for filters to take part in Ecto logic as well.
I do literally 3 changes.

  1. Add handle_event function:
  def handle_event("apply_filters", %{"search_form" => search_form}, socket) do
    {:noreply, push_patch(socket, to: "/search?#{build_search_query(search_form)}")}
  end
  1. Modify how I build the search query:
defp build_search_query(search_form) do
    filter1 = convert_list_to_string(search_form["filter1"])
    filter2 = convert_list_to_string(search_form["filter2"])
    filter3 = convert_list_to_string(search_form["filter3"])

    "q=#{search_form["query"]}&f1=#{filter1}&f2=#{filter2}&f3=#{filter3}"
  end

The result of this function looks good, e.g. "q=test&f1=brand1,brand2,brand3..." etc
3. Modify the handle_params function:

def handle_params(params, _uri, socket) do
    query = params["q"] || ""
    
    filters = %{
      :filter1 => String.split(params["f1"] || "", ","),
      :filter2 => String.split(params["f2"] || "", ","),
      :filter3 => String.split(params["f3"] || "", ",")
    }

    search_form = Search.make_search_form(query, filters)

    socket =
      socket
      |> update(:search_form, fn _ -> to_form(search_form, as: :search_form) end)
      |> update(:results, fn _ -> search_results(search_form) end) # this builds and executes Ecto query returning the list of results

    {:noreply, socket}
  end

What happens after this is the following:
If I enter the screen via /search endpoint and then start enabling checkboxes - they work fine.
If I enter the screen via the pre-built search query, all looks good too: the text in the search box is fine, and the checkboxes that should be enabled, are.

In both cases, problem starts when I try to disable a checkbox. It becomes super buggy: enabled/disabled state does not correspond to the params in the query, and at some point the query starts having the same param several times, e.g. f1=brand1,brand2,brand1.

I would welcome any advice.

Showing Posts 1 to 4

joshamb

joshamb

I’d suggest reading the following:

This also goes through doing what you desire, but with a less hard-cody build_search_query.

It’s a little outdated, but using ‘verified routes’ you can just do the following:

~p"/search?#{params}"

And it does the rest.

In regards to your problem, it’s likely you will find the booleans are becoming strings, ie "false" rather than false in the params of your handle_params.


In regards to your form, it’s not gonna ‘fix’ anything but I wouldn’t suggest putting your search results in their too, you should keep it elsewhere.

joshamb

joshamb

And if you wanted to further improve your solution, you could use an ‘embedded_schema’ to create your filter, and just past the .changes from it’s changeset into the URL to reduce clutter.

This is rather than the plain map you are passing into to_form

cmo

cmo

And use assign instead of update if you’re setting rather than updating the value.

DestroyedSoul

DestroyedSoul OP

Hello,
Thanks for the article suggestion.
It indeed does what I want to achieve as well.
I compared their logic with mine, and I have to say it’s pretty much the same (except for my build_search_query etc that you mentioned).
I tried to play around with the code to make it look more like theirs, but that did not help much.
As well as using ~p"/search?#{params}"

What I see is that in the article they only have string params, while I have lists.
It all works with just the search query (which is string), until I start trying to parse lists too.
Even ~p"/search?#{params}" returns string like "search/?query=test&f1[]=value1&f1[]=value2", whereas I would expect something like "/search?query=test&f1=value1,value2"

it’s likely you will find the booleans are becoming strings, ie "false" rather than false in the params of your handle_params .

I don’t have booleans yet anywhere, just string query (which works fine) and lists of strings for filters.

— All posts loaded —

Where Next? Top

Trending in Questions Top

katta
I having some trouble figuring out if I have set myself too strict of standards for my production server. Currently I can handle 75% of r...
New
brecabral
Documentation While reading the Scoped Routes section, I noticed that the documentation currently refers to a problem without explainin...
New
nseaSeb
Hello, I know there is an approach for handling lists that allows for optimized traversal, but I can’t recall the specific method (somet...
New
kpanic
Hi everyone, I am toying with the idea of building a “match maker” for giving personal help to people that wants to start coding. I sta...
New
velrest
So my question is quite simple and i have found no conclusive answer on forum, google or AI. Should we use :erlang.float for Integer to ...
New
asweet-confluent
I recently noticed that Elixir’s Logger defaults its primary log level to :debug when no :logger, :level application configuration is pre...
New
apz
I’m new to elixir and just tried to install the elixirLS extension for VScode(ium) and it is throwing some errors that I would like help ...
New

Other Trending Topics Top

GenericJam
Edit: 2026 May 15 - This post is archived. Mob is alive!! Main docs: mob v0.7.11 — Documentation A bit of explanation for the slightly c...
New
JesseHerrick
Hey, I’m Jesse and I’m the main contributor behind Dexter, a full-featured, lightning-fast Elixir LSP optimized for large codebases. It s...
New
mudasobwa
I am happy to introduce the very α version of the new programming language compiled to BEAM. Welcome Cure. It has literally three kille...
New
garrison
Hobbes is a low-level distributed database for the Elixir programming language. Hobbes provides a simple, safe, and scalable storage lay...
New
mhanberg
Hi everyone! The first release candidate for the Expert language server project is now available! We’ve published a press release detai...
New
budgie
A little off-topic, but I feel like people here have a good head on their shoulders. I used to be quite good at making software. Was luc...
New

We're in Beta

About us Mission Statement

Options

Thread Display Mode




Thread Preview

Skip Thread Previews