Bug 117810 - Dates view sidebar does not take into account tag filters
Summary: Dates view sidebar does not take into account tag filters
Status: RESOLVED FIXED
Alias: None
Product: digikam
Classification: Applications
Component: Searches-Dates (show other bugs)
Version: 0.8.0
Platform: Compiled Sources Linux
: NOR wishlist
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Digikam Developers
URL:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2005-12-06 19:19 UTC by Theo Spears
Modified: 2013-12-02 06:02 UTC (History)
1 user (show)

See Also:
Latest Commit:
Version Fixed In: 4.0.0
Sentry Crash Report:

Attachments
Add an attachment

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description Theo Spears 2005-12-06 19:19:21 UTC 
Version:           0.80 Using KDE 3.5 RC1 (using KDE Devel)
Installed from:    Compiled sources
OS:                Linux

In the Dates sidebar months are only shown when there are images for that month, and in a single month the days which have images associated are highlighted. However when tags are selected under the tags filter some of these months/days may no longer in fact have viewable photos associated with them, in spite of being visible/highlighted. It would be nice if the display in the dates sidebar adjusted itself to be in line with the photos currently selected by the tag filter.
Comment 1 Tom Albers 2005-12-28 17:43:34 UTC 
Pretty difficult to solve. albumlister.cpp will emit signalNewFilteredItems and signalDeleteFilterItem also when in the monthwidget is clicked on a certain day, so the monthwidget can not connect to these signals.
Comment 2 caulier.gilles 2008-12-05 18:35:46 UTC 
Theo,

What about this file ? It stil valid using digiKam 0.9.4 ?

Gilles Caulier
Comment 3 Mikolaj Machowski 2008-12-05 22:31:29 UTC 
This feature is still not implemented as of 0.9.5svn but I doubt usefulness of this.
Comment 4 caulier.gilles 2011-12-23 11:43:31 UTC 
Theo,

This file still valid using digiKam 2.4 ?

Gilles Caulier
Comment 5 caulier.gilles 2013-11-28 22:57:09 UTC 
Theo,

This file still valid using digiKam 3.x ?

Gilles Caulier
Comment 6 Theo Spears 2013-12-02 00:28:18 UTC 
This appeared to function correctly in 3.5.0 beta.