Question

Search not returning Impl layer columns

We have a requirement to customize the results of the OOTB Search results. We are using Pega 7.1.7. We have referred the following PDN article: 
https://pdn.pega.com/community/pega-product-support/question/full-text-search-work-objects-how-add-columns-data-search 
Specifically the post by Rajiv: 
In that case, I suggest you modify to gadget to call your own report definition instead of the one that is called by the gadget out of the box. Note that, if you are searching across different work classes and want to return different properties for different classes, then that is not feasible unless you run different search queries and show the results using your own custom UI. 

We have overridden the pyWorkSearch Report Definition, Section and Data page to try and achieve this. The Search functionality is still only executing the Work- version of the report definition and not fetching the columns in the implementation layer. The specific issue is in the pzSearch activity. In our case it is executing the distributed Search step (Step 1):

-----------------------------------------------------

try {

    pega.getSearcherAPI().search(myStepPage, tools.getParameterPage(), tools.getThread());

}

catch(com.pega.pegarules.priv.search.nextgen.FTSException fe) {

    oLog.error(fe.getMessage());

}

This populated the Search results page which only has the handful of Work- Columns in the OOTB pyWorkSearch RD. I have detailed all the steps followed in the attached document. Please review and let us know how we can achieve custom implementation columns in the full text search results.

**Moderation Team has archived post**

This post has been archived for educational purposes. Contents and links will no longer be updated. If you have the same/similar question, please write a new post.

Group Tags

Correct Answer
December 8, 2016 - 5:45am

Hi Angshuman,

The article referenced by me in the previous response mentions the following

Previously, the pySearchModel Data Transform rule was used to specify a custom search property list within a class.

This clearly states that prior to Pega 7.2.x, the way to do this was via a data transform with the name pySearchModel defined for your specific class. Note that whether it is the data transform or the new Data-CustomProperties-Search class, a re-index for instances of that class (and its sub classes) is required for the index to be updated with this change. Hope this helps.

-Rajiv

Comments

Keep up to date on this post and subscribe to comments

Pega
December 7, 2016 - 8:23am

Hi Shankar,

I looked at the documentation and found that your work class level custom properties would not be returned unless you specify at your class level the custom properties that need to be stored in the index to be returned in the search results. Please refer to this PDN article for details - https://pdn.pega.com/release-note/method-specifying-custom-search-properties-has-changed

-Rajiv

December 7, 2016 - 1:39pm
Response to nistr

Hi Rajiv,

We are using PRPC 7.1.7 and tried your suggession by having the custom search properties on implementation Work Class but same thing happened again. Our custom data page which is callin 'pySearchWrapper' with our Custom RD having the Custom properties to be displayed on search is not working.

the PDN article u shared is mainly talking about Data-CustomProperties-Search which is on PRPC V7.2.X not on 7.1.7

Can you please suggest a option for PRPC 7.1.7?

 

Pega
December 8, 2016 - 5:45am
Response to ANGSHU1983

Hi Angshuman,

The article referenced by me in the previous response mentions the following

Previously, the pySearchModel Data Transform rule was used to specify a custom search property list within a class.

This clearly states that prior to Pega 7.2.x, the way to do this was via a data transform with the name pySearchModel defined for your specific class. Note that whether it is the data transform or the new Data-CustomProperties-Search class, a re-index for instances of that class (and its sub classes) is required for the index to be updated with this change. Hope this helps.

-Rajiv

December 8, 2016 - 1:15pm
Response to nistr

Sorry missed that small part. This helps... Achieved the requirement.

 

Thanks Rajiv.