enso-org
Searching for static methods does not seem to consider written qualified name.
Follow up of https://github.com/enso-org/enso/pull/7484#issuecomment-1663493720
When I open CB and type Table.new, I get Table.new only at 3rd place.
I guess this is because the filtering pattern is only "new", and "Table." is a context, and for some reason we no longer filter out entries whose qualified names did not match the "context" part - this was a workaround meant to be removed once #5354 is implemented.
Also the private entries should not be visible in default search.
This is another issue: #7464
I guess this is because the filtering pattern is only "new", and "Table." is a context, and for some reason we no longer filter out entries whose qualified names did not match the "context" part - this was a workaround meant to be removed once https://github.com/enso-org/enso/issues/5354 is implemented.
The workaround is working the way it has since whenever it was introduced. The displayed entries all have Table in their qualified names, which is the condition tested; it looks like they are all PRIVATE functions defined in types within the Table module. All the unexpected entries in this case will be fixed by #7464.
We might improve the workaround by requiring the context to match at the end of the namespace (so that Table.new doesn't match Table.Foo.new), but I think once #5354 is implemented the current recursive-search behavior might make more sense.
Oh, I haven't noticed that each type has "Table" inside. So I guess it would behave the same in the old commits if they would display "PRIVATE" methods?
Ok, so I will put higher priority on task with "PRIVATE" tag, and then we consider if close this one.