#941 Add a group property to exclude entries from search results

[Noshell]

Hello,

Password Safe currently allows users to restrict searches using Advanced Find criteria. However, these criteria are session-specific and must be configured again after restarting the application.

This is inconvenient for groups containing entries that should remain in the database but should not normally appear in search results, such as:

• archived accounts;
• obsolete or disabled credentials;
• decommissioned systems;
• historical entries;
• test accounts.

For example, I maintain an Archive group. Its entries must remain accessible, but they create unnecessary noise in routine searches

Here is my request : Is it possible to add a persistent search behavior property to groups, similar to the functionality available in KeePass.

A possible setting in the group properties dialog could be:

Searching entries in this group:

• Inherit from parent
• Disabled

When set to Disabled, entries belonging to the group should be excluded from normal search results.

Thank you.

[MrMe]

I too would love to have this feature.

I was thinking of the another way this feature could be implemented.

1. Currently you can have filters that are stored in the database. Filters stored in the database could be defined for groups/entries that you don't want to appear in Find search results.
2. An enhancement to Find would be the ability to configure it with the filters stored in the database that Find would use to determine the entries to exclude during searching. The new configuration to Find would need to be a setting that is stored in the database, so the user only needs to do it once.

[Rony Shapiro]

I'm not sure about this. My main concern is that people will set this and forget it, or set this incorrectly and as a result miss entries that they'd otherwise see.

A simpler solution (what I do) is keep a separate "archive" database, and move entries to this (via drag & drop) as needed. This also provides the advantage of keeping the main database trimmed down.

If we decide to implement this, I'd define this as an "archive" flag, and visually indicate it by, say, graying out the group's icon and text, and applying it recursively to all subgroups.

[MrMe]

Hi Rony,

The database filter approach was just an idea. I support whatever solution is best.

I agree that archiving entries to a separate 'archive' database is a simple solution. If the database gets too large, I think that a user would likely want to archive entries to a separate database, especially if using a slow computer. However, before deciding to archive entries to a separate database, I know I have entries (all under a single top-level group) that I don't need to be found in Search and that I'm not ready to remove from my main database, which is why I support this feature.

Not sure if your "archive" flag approach also means that Find would not surface those items? If so, then the archive flag would be fine with me.