Exploring 6.0.1 on Win10 and have been testing the filters. Tried using the custom filters carried over from 5.2 and was seeing strange results so scrapped that custom_filter file and started from scratch. After creating a new set of filters, I wanted to create one final filter that combined peopl…

I investigated this a bit. It seems that there might be an issue with the new Optimizer class in Gramps 6.0. Not sure why but this workaround seems to help: add a line in the method apply_logical_op_to_all in the file gramps/gen/filters/_genericfilter.py ( around line 149 ) as follows: optimize…

@DaveSch could you file a bug report so that the patch by @kku will get into the 6.0.2 roadmap?

I added the line to _genericfilter.py but am not seeing any change in the results on my database. I had tried the same set of filters on the Example database using LAGvZ as the base person. Before the modified code, zero (0) people were returned. With the applied code, 137 people were returned. Thi…

This is just guessing but I have two suggestions: Remove Optimizer completely by changing the lines to: # optimizer = Optimizer(self) # handles_in, handles_out = optimizer.get_handles() handles_in = None handles_out = [] Add debug logging with gramps -d .filter…

Making the change to: handles_in = None handles_out = [] Actually solved the problem. 165264 people returned in the filter. Here is what displayed in the debug window setup debugging .filter.optimizer setup debugging .filter.results (gramps.exe:10956): libenchant-WARNING **: 1…

[image] DaveSch: I’ll look to see what it did not like in the dictionary file. If anyone is interested, the lines in the dictionary file were words in the possessive ('s). I deleted them.

I see a potential issue. Can someone check to see what handles_in is before you set it to None. (I’m guessing it is an empty set). If so, we can fix this without this workaround.

[image] DaveSch: <filter name="Family 1A: The Family and their Spouces" function="or"> <rule class="MatchesFilter" use_regex="False" use_case="False"> <arg value="Family 1a: Ancestors of..."/> </rule> <rule class="MatchesFilter" use_regex="False" use_case="False"> …

@dsblank I wasn’t quite sure where you meant so this might be more detail than you need In Optimizer.get_handles, self.all_selected_handles contains the results of the two sub-filters. These appear to be correct, having the expected length. Each of the sub-filters contain only a single rule but ha…

Thanks @SteveY ! I think you have identified the issue. Do you want to make a PR? Otherwise I’ll fix this weekend

Strange filter behavior in 6.0.1

Help

SteveY April 25, 2025, 5:45pm 19

I’ve posted a potential fix for review
Fix Filter Optimizer Logical Op · Pull Request #2052

3 Likes

Can't get filter to work in 6.0

Topic		Replies	Views
What to expect (and test) with Gramps 6.0 beta Beta Testing	40	712	April 24, 2025
Can't get filter to work in 6.0 Help	13	106	May 25, 2025
Compound Filters Not Working Help	2	60	June 21, 2025
Collaborate on Optimizing a new Custom Rule Development new_filter_rules , performance	23	1018	March 15, 2025
Addon Filter Rule requests Ideas third-party-addon , new_filter_rules , supertool-script , custom-filters	13	942	April 19, 2025

Strange filter behavior in 6.0.1

Related topics