Multi value text choices #1923

XingY · 2026-01-12T21:13:53Z

Rationale

This PR enables "Multi Choice" data type in domain designer and supports editing/sorting multi values in the app.

Related Pull Requests

Changes

Added new MULTI_CHOICE_RANGE_URI for defining MVTC fields and updated utils to check against data type
renamed joinValues prop for SelectInput to skipJoinValues to align with its actual usage
Modified FilterFacetedSelector and QueryFilterPanel to handle array value selecting for MVTC

Copilot

Copilot encountered an error and was unable to review this pull request. You can try again by re-requesting a review.

labkey-alan · 2026-01-14T23:22:42Z

packages/components/src/internal/components/domainproperties/actions.ts

-            textChoiceValidator: undefined,
-            valueExpression: undefined,
+            textChoiceValidator: isTextChoice ? field.textChoiceValidator: undefined,
+            valueExpression: isTextChoice ? field.valueExpression: undefined,


nit: run the linter/formatter to clean these up.

labkey-alan · 2026-01-14T23:26:48Z

packages/components/src/internal/components/domainproperties/actions.ts

-                regexValidators: [],
-                scale: MAX_TEXT_LENGTH,
-            }) as DomainField;
+            if (!wasTextChoice) {


Couldn't we move this if statement logic into the if statement above so it looks something like:

if ((field.isTextChoiceField() || field.isMultiChoiceField()) && !wasTextChoice) {

or maybe to be a little more verbose, but easier to read:

const isChoiceField = field.isTextChoiceField() || field.isMultiChoiceField(); if (isChoiceField && !wasTextChoice) {

labkey-alan · 2026-01-14T23:43:39Z

packages/components/src/internal/components/domainproperties/DomainRow.tsx

+                                        {expanded &&
+                                            !isFieldFullyLocked(field.lockType) &&
+                                            !appPropertiesOnly &&
+                                            DomainField.allowAdvancedSettings(field) && (
+                                                <button
+                                                    className="domain-row-button btn btn-default"
+                                                    disabled={isFieldFullyLocked(field.lockType)}
+                                                    id={createFormInputId(DOMAIN_FIELD_ADV, domainIndex, index)}
+                                                    name={createFormInputName(DOMAIN_FIELD_ADV)}
+                                                    onClick={this.onShowAdvanced}
+                                                    type="button"
+                                                >
+                                                    Advanced Settings
+                                                </button>
+                                            )}


If we move the logic for showing this button to a variable above:

const showAdvancedSettingsButton = expanded && !isFieldFullyLocked(field.lockType) && !appPropertiesOnly && DomainField.allowAdvancedSettings(field);

Then we can remove the added level of nesting in the TSX:

Suggested change

{expanded &&

!isFieldFullyLocked(field.lockType) &&

!appPropertiesOnly &&

DomainField.allowAdvancedSettings(field) && (

<button

className="domain-row-button btn btn-default"

disabled={isFieldFullyLocked(field.lockType)}

id={createFormInputId(DOMAIN_FIELD_ADV, domainIndex, index)}

name={createFormInputName(DOMAIN_FIELD_ADV)}

onClick={this.onShowAdvanced}

type="button"

>

Advanced Settings

</button>

)}

{showAdvancedSettingsButton && (

<button

className="domain-row-button btn btn-default"

disabled={isFieldFullyLocked(field.lockType)}

id={createFormInputId(DOMAIN_FIELD_ADV, domainIndex, index)}

name={createFormInputName(DOMAIN_FIELD_ADV)}

onClick={this.onShowAdvanced}

type="button"

>

Advanced Settings

</button>

)}

It's a small change but I think it's more readable because the variable is named and there's less logic spread out over multiple lines in an already highly nested TSX block.

labkey-alan · 2026-01-14T23:47:06Z

packages/components/src/internal/components/domainproperties/models.tsx

+                    if (
+                        (type === 'TextChoice' || type === 'MultiChoice') &&
+                        !rawPropertyValidator[i]?.properties?.validValues
+                    ) {


I would define a variable isChoice below the hasExpressionStr variable above:

const isChoice = type === 'TextChoice' || type === 'MultiChoice';

Then the if statement will fit on one line instead of 4, and be a little easier to read.

Suggested change

if (

(type === 'TextChoice' || type === 'MultiChoice') &&

!rawPropertyValidator[i]?.properties?.validValues

) {

if (isChoice && !rawPropertyValidator[i]?.properties?.validValues) {

labkey-alan · 2026-01-14T23:50:39Z

packages/components/src/internal/components/editable/actions.ts


 async function convertRowToEditorModelData(
-    data: boolean | number | string,
+    data: [] | boolean | number | string,


Good point. For now we only support string[]

labkey-alan · 2026-01-15T16:57:21Z

packages/components/src/internal/components/search/QueryFilterPanel.tsx

+                                            allowRelativeDateFilter={allowRelativeDateFilter}
+                                            disabled={hasNotInQueryFilter}
+                                            field={activeField}
+                                            fieldFilters={currentFieldFilters?.map(filter => filter.filter)}


This should be memoized above, otherwise it's going to produce a new array every render cycle, and force a rerender.

labkey-alan · 2026-01-15T16:57:59Z

packages/components/src/internal/components/search/QueryFilterPanel.tsx

+                                            }
+                                            key={activeFieldKey}
+                                            onFieldFilterUpdate={(newFilters, index) =>
+                                                onFilterUpdate(activeField, newFilters, index)


This should be memoized above, via useCallback, otherwise it's going to produce a new method every render cycle, and force a rerender.

labkey-alan · 2026-01-15T16:59:16Z

packages/components/src/internal/components/search/QueryFilterPanel.tsx

                                    <div className="field-modal__col-sub-title">
                                        Find values for {activeField.caption}
                                    </div>
                                    <FilterFacetedSelector


Like above, this <FilterFacetedSelector has several props being passed to it need to be memoized via useMemo or useCallback.

labkey-alan · 2026-01-15T17:04:25Z

packages/components/src/internal/components/search/FilterFacetedSelector.tsx

+                        options={filterOptions}
+                        placeholder="Select a filter type..."
+                        required={true}
+                        value={fieldFilters?.[0]?.getFilterType()?.getURLSuffix() || 'arraycontainsall'}


Is this the correct use of ?. If fieldFilters[0] isn't null/undefined, then wouldn't it be guaranteed that getFilterType would have a non-null return? Basically, could we go from:

fieldFilters?.[0]?.getFilterType()?.getURLSuffix()

to

fieldFilters?.[0]?.getFilterType().getURLSuffix()

labkey-alan · 2026-01-15T17:11:56Z

packages/components/src/internal/renderers/MultiValueRenderer.tsx

There's an unused import of Fragment at the top of this file that should probably be cleaned up

XingY added 5 commits January 12, 2026 10:54

Multi value text choices

5a896b7

fixes

5557f6f

fix empty array

ae44119

fix empty array

ee689d3

fix empty array

028929c

This was referenced Jan 12, 2026

Add Array filter types LabKey/labkey-api-js#204

Open

Multi value text choices LabKey/platform#7323

Open

XingY added 2 commits January 12, 2026 19:09

support filters

bf27fe1

fix joinValues

93ca6ff

XingY requested a review from Copilot January 13, 2026 21:47

Copilot started reviewing on behalf of XingY January 13, 2026 21:48 View session

fix joinValues

7703c80

Copilot AI reviewed Jan 13, 2026

View reviewed changes

XingY added 3 commits January 13, 2026 15:48

order inputs

9d8bbb0

order inputs

689da0b

order inputs

858d263

XingY requested a review from Copilot January 14, 2026 19:40

Copilot started reviewing on behalf of XingY January 14, 2026 19:40 View session

This comment was marked as resolved.

Sign in to view

XingY added 2 commits January 14, 2026 12:04

clean

cacb2d3

clean

acf9931

XingY requested a review from labkey-alan January 14, 2026 21:28

XingY added 6 commits January 14, 2026 14:51

bug fixes

84d0be4

bug fixes

814e11a

fix copy paste, drag fill

e241e0e

bug fixes

739ea73

show advanced settings

d935f6b

show advanced settings

5861847

labkey-alan requested changes Jan 15, 2026

View reviewed changes

code review changes

67efa7c

code review changes

d1db558

XingY requested a review from labkey-alan January 16, 2026 02:07

XingY added 2 commits January 16, 2026 16:15

jest

f64d10b

fix ordering of filter options

637914d

Multi value text choices #1923

Are you sure you want to change the base?

Multi value text choices #1923

Uh oh!

Conversation

XingY commented Jan 12, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Rationale

Related Pull Requests

Changes

Uh oh!

Copilot AI left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

This comment was marked as resolved.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

3 participants

XingY commented Jan 12, 2026 •

edited

Loading