Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

"Grouped" trade search - link generation #7

Open
ThirtyWasTaken opened this issue Apr 17, 2023 · 9 comments
Open

"Grouped" trade search - link generation #7

ThirtyWasTaken opened this issue Apr 17, 2023 · 9 comments

Comments

@ThirtyWasTaken
Copy link

Hi, I recently noticed that the "grouped" trade does not generate properly the filter in PoE trade website. Please redo all steps below to see the issue.

Scenario:

  1. configure website jewel search
    1.a) pick jewel type. - for example: "Brutal Restraint"
    1.b) pick conqueror type. - for example: "Asenath"
    1.c) add desired stat. - for example: "#% increased Flask Charges gained"
    1.d) select min (default 0) and weight (default 1). - for example min = 0, weight = 1
    1.e) select min total weight (default 1). for example: min total weight = 2
    1.f) pick desired jewel slot in tree. - for example: right side of ranger
    1.g) deselect all small and notable passives
    1.h) select: "Herbalism", "Intuition", "Careful Conservationist" - (this one is incorrect due to not updated tree in 3.21)

  2. after config is done, click search button.
    2.a) wait for the program to search desired jewel bases
    2.b) check if 1 jewel base for 3 passives is present
    2.c) check if 55 jewel bases for 2 passives are present
    2.d) click "grouped" to change from purple to blue color
    2.e) click "trade" and be redirected to PoE web trade page.

  3. check filter specifics
    3.a) check if 1 jewel base for 3 passives is present
    3.b) check if all 55 jewel bases for 2 passives are present present

  • 55 or 56, not sure if the 3 passive jewel is counted once or twice

ISSUE:
56 (55*) jewel bases are not present in filter search and are not searched in trade window API
total maximum searchable bases around 28-ish.

EXPECTED:
desired outcome: 56 (55*) bases are present in filter search and are searchable in the PoE trade window API

@Vilsol
Copy link
Owner

Vilsol commented Apr 17, 2023

Hi @ThirtyWasTaken, if I understand correctly, your issue is that after you press "Trade" in the PoE trade site you only see 28 seeds, not all 56?

@ThirtyWasTaken
Copy link
Author

Hi @ThirtyWasTaken, if I understand correctly, your issue is that after you press "Trade" in the PoE trade site you only see 28 seeds, not all 56?

Yes, that is correct!

@Vilsol
Copy link
Owner

Vilsol commented Apr 17, 2023

The issue is that poe trade doesn't allow you to add that many filters to the search. They have a query complexity calculator, and it caps out at 28 seeds.

@ThirtyWasTaken
Copy link
Author

Could Your API maybe group jewels in stacks of 28 rather than all at once, so we don't need to put the numbers manually ourselves?

@Vilsol
Copy link
Owner

Vilsol commented Apr 17, 2023

Sounds possible, do you have an idea for a UI mockup how that would look?

@ThirtyWasTaken
Copy link
Author

image

@ThirtyWasTaken
Copy link
Author

Im not an UI expert, but I would see it something like this. Maybe this could be an additional config Grouped + Bulk search (more than 28 elements).

@immorality
Copy link

Searching by groups will greatly improve usability. If it can still be done, that would be great.

@takoz53
Copy link

takoz53 commented Dec 14, 2023

Is this something to be implemented soon, or not considered at all?
Can't do a single search for double damage nodes for instance.
Having e.g. only 1 node selected, there is 300 Matches.
In trade, 290 of those 300 matches don't even exist yet probably.
I click through 300 matches one by one. It is kind of not practical sadly.
image

This will yield back
image

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants