Fix Views argument handlers

There are many argument handlers missing too.
I'm not sure if this is something that will be handled by other changes you're making on the views side of things so I thought I would mention it. I'll also happily raise a separate issue if you wish.

Personally the ones I would most like to have are the missing term arguments (I was hoping to use them to replace my term pages with Search API). They are:

"Content: Has taxonomy term ID
Display content if it has the selected taxonomy terms.

Content: Has taxonomy term ID (with depth)
Display content if it has the selected taxonomy terms, or children of the selected terms. Due to additional complexity, this has fewer options than the versions without depth.

Content: Has taxonomy term ID depth modifier
Allows the "depth" for Taxonomy: Term ID (with depth) to be modified via an additional contextual filter value."

EDIT: Actually, after giving it more thought I don't think I should be trying to use terms arguments for this purpose. Still, I think the point still stands.

Oh yes I realise that. There are loads of them - I just wanted to see where you stood on adding missing ones as you've said you don't really use them yourself.

You've pretty much got it right on how those arguments are used. You can set a depth (can be positive, 0 or negative for children, just the term or parents, respectively) or pass it a depth via the depth modifier argument.
That said, the depth modifier is probably less widely used as the static setting on the term with depth argument is normally all that is required.

Hi, filtering by taxonomy (with depth) would be a nice feature.

I'm just wondering if this could somehow be done by defining relationships in views.
Then automatically we have all fields defined by node and can do additional filtering on them.

I'm not familiar with all internal views stuff so just shooting.

Yeah I also had the same idea to use search api and solr for showing taxonomy pages. Managed to do everything so far and now I got to the same problem no depth support.

Does anyone have an idea how to do this ? Even if it would be a messy solution just to get it working for now.

How about if I would use multiple selection and then select both parent and child. Would that work with the way solr is made now?

That would solve my use case.

Ty.

Hi,

any news on this ?

best regards

Would also be good to include #1407844: Allow exclude for contextual filters when working on the argument handlers.

I am also stuck here, and need some sort of depth modifier.

Also looking for this. Thanks!

i am not sure if it helps until this is done but what i did is add an aggregated field and add all vocabulary ids, then i used that field as contextual filter for taxonomy. result is that every single taxonomy link triggers a "search api page/result"

Any progress on this?

I could really use the "Content: Has taxonomy term ID" contextual filter to override my taxonomy pages to be search results table

For a "Content: Has taxonomy term ID"-like contextual filter, please have a look at #1696434: Search API views argument handler for all indexed taxonomy term fields..

Aside from taxonomy, a way to hook into the location:proximity filter argument is highly needed. The actual Search API location module looks dead, and the Location argument would allow our websites to keep up with the big boys.

I managed to set up my taxonomy pages using search api & taxonomy term id with depth:

• Create a search index including the needed taxonomy field to use as an argument
• Set up the search index view with path taxonomy/term/*
• Use taxonomy_display module to let the vocabulary use the created view
• Add the argument Indexed Node: [indexed vocabulary name]

In the argument, specify the following php validation criteria:

$children = array_keys(taxonomy_get_children($handler->argument));
if(!empty($children)) $handler->argument .= '+' . implode('+', $children);

return TRUE;

Don't forget to check 'allow multiple values'!

Thank MDJ Webdiensten, its worked for me.

#18 worked for me
And what about the redefinition of the title?