Issue with Filter Functionality

[abutaha]

Hello,

It seems that the filter options are no longer working as expected after the May 25 update. When I try to apply a filter, such as vCPUs or Instance Memory, nothing changes in the displayed results, and the interface doesn't indicate that the filter has been applied.

I tried in Chrome (normal and Incognito mode), Firefox and Brave. All exhibiting same behavior.

Thanks,

[IAmJSD]

Hey @abutaha,

Thanks for reporting - do you have any other filters set? I CNR on https://instances.vantage.sh/, I am doing the following:

1. Load the page
2. Set vCPUs to 10
3. All vCPUs under 10 seem hidden, above 10 seem visible

What OS/browser are you using too please?

[IAmJSD]

The one thing I do notice that might cause this confusion is you can't backspace the 0, if you do ctrl+a and enter the value does that work? I will try and make a nice solution if this is the case.

[IAmJSD]

^ if it is that, this commit will fix it

[abutaha]

Hey @IAmJSD

So, I'm running Kubuntu 24.04. As for the browsers, I tried Chrome, Firefox and Brave.

So I can confirm it is behaving as you mentioned. Like set vCPUs to 10 and it will hid all under 10. However, I remember the filter was different. For instance, I used to set it to 8 and it would display only the instances that have 8 vCPU. I think this should be the right behavior.

Thanks

Hey @abutaha,

Thanks for reporting - do you have any other filters set? I CNR on https://instances.vantage.sh/, I am doing the following:

1. Load the page
2. Set vCPUs to 10
3. All vCPUs under 10 seem hidden, above 10 seem visible

What OS/browser are you using too please?

[IAmJSD]

Ok great, thanks so much for reporting @abutaha - the updated behaviour will be in staging soon (CI typically takes 30 mins, so in about 20 mins it will be at https://instances.vantagestaging.sh), and we will push to main (and therefore production) soon

[IAmJSD]

oh wait sorry I misread your message, my apologies, ok I will look into this further

[IAmJSD]

https://github.com/vantage-sh/ec2instances.info/blob/legacy/www/default.js#L104 it does seem the legacy behaviour was min vcpus

[abutaha]

Alright thanks @IAmJSD for looking into it.

[abutaha]

@IAmJSD The 'API Name' column behaves as I expected. Now I'm not sure if filtering only on vCPU/Memory used to be an exact filter as the API Name or not. But if you want my 2c, I would say all filters should be an exact match. I would like to look for an 8 vpcu instance type across all families to compare different prices and not filter out smaller instances.

[IAmJSD]

@abutaha Yeah I agree, I think the solution here is to add different filter types min/max/eq. This isn't a diff between legacy/rewrite persay, but I think it is something we should add

[cristim]

Thinking of this filtering behavior, what do you think about adding support for expressions in the numeric filter fields, like "=10", ">=2" or ">=2&<=8", and set them as default to something like ">0&<100" to hint the user they can do this?

Or alternatively use a range style like "10..20", with "10.." for ">=10" and "10" for exact match, which I think would look cleaner.