We have put in a lot of effort to clean up our code in terms of not using toplevel facts, and are now enforcing include_legacy_facts = false. However, it seems the GUI does not have completion support for the modern syntax of "os.name", "os.release.major" and so on when filtering on facts. Up till now we have started writing "osfam.." and presto we find the right fact to filter on. Now we have enter the full name and chose "Add..." The old adage "no good deed goes unpunished" comes to mind 🙂 So, is there a way to support completion for the new syntax?

That sounds like a UI bug to me... Did you report anything to support?

Facts became "nested" in Puppet 4, but there are still a ton of workflows that assume all facts exist in a single-level flat namespace. For a long time, the presence of the flat-namespace of legacy facts masked those workflow gaps.

Yes, I assumed as much. It seems then that this is not so much a bug as a lack of completion support for multi-level fact when entering filter conditions? To my knowledge, completion support for say "os.release.full" when filtering in "Status / Filter by value" has never worked, whereas adding the full fact name and adding it manually seems to work. Well, since Puppet tries to deprecate the use of top level facs, then it would help a great deal if the GUI supported the use of multilevel facts, or what-you-may-call-em, in frequently used functions like filtering. I don't know if this is something being worked on, if it's far down the todo-list, or if there is a proper place to submit a feature request for this?

Customer support portal is the best place to send in a request for having this fixed. I just found a discussion happening internally where folks are evaluating a similar request from another customer. If we can get your feature request in there as well, that will add to the weight behind the need for this and help bump up the priority.

Alas, there is not autocomplete support in the console for diving into structured facts.

Yes, alas indeed. And thanks for the suggestion. I will see if I can weigh in on this then, by issuing a request. This makes me wonder, though...are we the only ones using filtering or just one of the few customers that actually tries to adopt the recommended syntax? 🙂

It's definitely been brought up by other customers... might be time to get all the voices together to ask for something like this. I think it would be a nice usability addition.

Agreed, would be a nice QoL addition.

I concur. The devil is in the details.... 🙂