LogViewPlus Support » LogViewPlus Support » Help & Support » Is it possible to temporarily disable (vs delete) a filter?

Is it possible to temporarily disable (vs delete) a filter?

remo0033 — Mon, 22 Jul 2019 06:06:42 GMT

I have 2 filters: one is general (level 1) and the other is a little more restrictive (level 2).

I want to temporarily disable the more restrictive log (level 2) to focus on the general items.... but then jump right back to the level 2 filter.

When I right-click, I see the option for Close View (i.e., Delete) but I was hoping there was an option for Disable as well.

Being able to maneuver from a "general" filter to a move "restrictive" filter and back, w/o having to delete and re-create filters would be nice.

-Remo

RE: Is it possible to temporarily disable (vs delete) a filter?

LogViewPlus Support — Mon, 22 Jul 2019 06:06:42 GMT

That's great Remo - thanks for letting me know.

Please do let me know if you have any further thoughts or issues.

Thanks,

Toby

RE: Is it possible to temporarily disable (vs delete) a filter?

remo0033 — Mon, 22 Jul 2019 01:22:54 GMT

Your suggested workaround certainly meets my needs. Thanks.

RE: Is it possible to temporarily disable (vs delete) a filter?

LogViewPlus Support — Sat, 20 Jul 2019 12:10:47 GMT

Hi Remo,

Thanks for the suggestion. It's an interesting idea and I can see where it would be helpful.

The work-around right now would be to copy and paste the child filter under the 'grandparent' node. This give you two copies of the same filter - one with and one without the parent.

I like this approach for two reasons:
1. Copy and paste is something users are already familiar with.
2. It makes it very easy to switch back and forth between views.

Enabling / disabling a filter has a few drawbacks:
1. This would need to be visually communicated to the user and I am not sure how to do this. 'Fading' the node currently means 'cut operation in progress'.
2. It would require refreshing all child nodes recursively. This could be an expensive operation for a large log file.

So, I think it is a good idea, but I am not sure that it is clearly better than the existing way.

Thanks,

Toby