min_age / max_age filter not working correctly

Hey there,

in our forum ( http://discuss.gradle.org ) we’d like to filter for all topics with no replies older than a day or two. It seems that min_age:1 is not respected when configured in a query. sample query:


Am I missing something obvious here or can you acknowledge that this is a bug?


Are these the correct search querystrings, @sam?

Not sure if this is a bug or just a contextual wording problem, but the query you want to use is

That seems to do what you were wanting.

Looking at the code

They seem to be doing the reverse of what they describe (depending how you look at it). min_age is saying it has to be created after X days ago, and max_age is saying it should be created prior to X days ago.


thanks for clarifying. but this is quite confusing behaviour, isn’t it?

Not to me, but I guess it’s

To me “min_age” means “not newer than this” and
“max_age” means “not older than this”


I am open to changing the words here, its the second time it has tripped people. Any suggestions for better terms to describe this ?

older_than and newer_than ?

You know, I’ve been wondering the same thing, but I haven’t really come up with anything better than older_than and newer_than either.

Maybe part of it is “lower” dates are older while “higher” dates are newer?

Maybe before and after?

A difference would be max and min are inclusive, but before and after are exclusive

“on or before”, and “on or after”, are a bit too wordy IMHO and not everyone would understand <= >=


before and after seem like nice clear simple words, what do you think @sam?

Issue with before is that it does not read right.

Slack allow for before but it is way more fancy … before:june , before:yesterday , before:2016-02-17 all work there .

I guess we can go with before but add that support … should be fairly simple to support some basics there. localizing is very tricky though.


Thanks to all of you for your support here.

I like this proposal before:yesterday or before:2d is what we’re looking for.


Ok this is now significantly simplified per

@Rene let me know what you think


cool. Thanks again for the work on this. looks good to me.