New fuzzy matching

[kazcw]

Pull Request Description

Implements #7046.

Important Notes

• See the fuzzly test cases for examples of matching/non-matching cases.
• See the searcher controller test cases for examples of ordering according to the new scoring criteria.

Checklist

Please ensure that the following checklist has been satisfied before submitting the PR:

• The documentation has been updated, if necessary.
• Screenshots/screencasts have been attached, if there are any visual changes. For interactive or animated visual changes, a screencast is preferred.
• All code follows the
  Scala,
  Java,
  and
  Rust
  style guides. In case you are using a language not listed above, follow the Rust style guide.
• All code has been tested:
  • Unit tests have been written where possible.
  • If GUI codebase was changed, the GUI was tested when built using ./run ide build.

[somebody1234]

on the js side it's just the package-lock.json change again

[farmaazon]

The code is good to land except I miss some documentation here and there, and I'm worrying the potentially exponential cost of the matching algorithm. I can propose an alternative one to discuss in a separate issue.

[farmaazon]

If we take the value second time, it will always be just default. It seems that you meant &mut self.next_states_buffer.

I wanted to ask for test checking this, but I realize it's actually impossible :) as you cannot test how many vector allocations are there.

Or can we?

[kazcw]

I don't see any good way to test such a thing in unit tests, but it would have come up in profiling (eventually).

[farmaazon]

And the last thing

5. The area for adding elements in list editor is still hardly discoverable. It was reported, and it was planned to fix in the new design. I assume this is planned for another task?

[kazcw]

And the last thing

5. The area for adding elements in list editor is still hardly discoverable. It was reported, and it was planned to fix in the new design. I assume this is planned for another task?

@farmaazon Was this intended to be posted somewhere else?

[farmaazon]

@farmaazon Was this intended to be posted somewhere else?

@kazcw Yes, I was intended for #7311, sorry for confusion.

[MichaelMauderer]

QA: 🔴

Sorting looks good, but it appears that the text highlight in the searcher is broken:

Instead of Table it should highlight order. It seems that only ever the characters at the beginning of the entries are highlighted.

[kazcw]

QA: 🔴

Sorting looks good, but it appears that the text highlight in the searcher is broken:

Instead of Table it should highlight order. It seems that only ever the characters at the beginning of the entries are highlighted.

Ah, that broke in merge. The new label format will need some additional logic to locate the matched string in the displayed string...

[kazcw]

Highlighting is fixed for the new label format, so given that sorting looks good I think we're ready for merge.