Feedback about the Log Query Builder, the auto-complete improvements have been great but removing the pills arounds each condition makes it hard to see conjunctions as everything runs together and nothing highlights when being edited. The old pill system was clunky (the flickering state) but at least always obvious.

removing the pills arounds each condition makes it hard to see conjunctions as everything runs together and nothing highlights when being edited

I am not able to clearly follow this. Would it be possible for you to make a short video describing the issue?

In the older query builder, it was easy to know which clause you were editing and the "x" made it easy to delete clause:

it all runs together

I am not able to follow this. You can select the text and remove? And the cursor position tells which one you are editing.

Coming from SQL I'm used to seeing explicit ANDs between clauses. The outlines made up for implicit-ANDs in the old UI but it seems they've been removed in the new UI.

I see, so instead of the implicit AND, if we make it explicit when the conditions are added (and assuming that users would also add them if they prefer), does it make it easy?

I agree the implicit ANDs cut down on noise but the old outlines also saved space while making it a bit more explicit.

Thanks for the feedback. Essentially you miss the parts of the chip/pill • quick delete with x option • highlight which one you are editing • highlight which fragment has error

Yeah, those aspects of the pill . Although I thought the pills could be clunky in how they unwrapped while editing.

Although I thought the pills could be clunky in how they unwrapped while editing

Right, it was very clunky

The new error message is good

1:37 - extraneous input ''staging'' expecting ']'

but harder to use if you think back to the input being a single line without a column counter.

Noted, Say, you get the code editor like experience which points where the error, then I imagine it wouldn't be much problem?

Yeah, a red squiggly underline at that position would be helpful. I stick to the checkbox UI for sets, but could see how that wouldn't work if using

NOT IN

queries.

Thanks for the feedback. I think I understood some points clearly. Let us think about it and see how to go about addressing them.