Object Type not found as starting object set

I have encountered this bug several times when creating actions in the Ontology:

I want to use an existing object as the starting object set for the choices the user have to pick from in a given field.

However, when trying to search for the Ontology object type I want the object type I desire doesn’t show up in the list. This is true even while copy-pasting the name in there.

I’ve noticed that which object types show up in the search results depend on how I structure my search query, and at times I’ve been lucky to find it by slowly writing the name in character at a time.

E.g. searching for an object type called “[Engine Parts] Manifold”, the object type wouldn’t show up in a verbatim search, but writing “Manifo” would work, while writing “[Engine Parts]” or “Manifold” wouldn’t.

It is not a permissions issue, as I have owner rights on this object type (as well as the one this action concerns), and I am able to import the object type as a reference or set in my action (see photo).

Does anyone have a fix for this? Or do we need to wait for an update to how the (fuzzy) search in these dialogues work with the Ontology, expanding the range of results to include the entire Ontology?


As a side note, there are similar problems to this in Workshop:

When adding a new Object Set Definition variable, the right ones do not always show up.

Same goes for searching for objects in the Ontology:

Say a user wants to find an object titled “North London Auto Shop”. If they search for “North London Auto”, they would often have another object titled “Central North London Auto Shop” show up as the first result.
This result seems to always be composed of a list of KNNs, but then arranged alphabetically, which defeats the purpose.

Hi Jake, thank you for your message and input. We acknowledge ontology search, or specifically object type search has its gaps and in current form leads to sub-par or clearly bad user experience.

We will dig into your specific examples and identify what’s the short term solution that could alleviate the pain and provide expected search behaviour. Long term, this is a topic which we have in our backlog and on our radar so stay tuned for improvements in this area over the time.

Just to be clear: there’s no current workaround for this bug?