It seems that there are two mutually-exclusive ways to use filter:
- Setting a function to determine visibility.
- Setting a boolean column to denote visibility.
The problem of (1) is that if any of the ancestors does not match the function, matching children will not show. For example, if the VisibleFunc returns true when the current node's name contains "b" for the following tree, only "bc" will be shown, and "ab" will not, because its parent "a" does not have "b".
- a
- ab
- ac
- b
- bc
I think that in most use cases, this would not be something the user wants. I saw an existing question, and the answer was using (2) instead. Basically, what the answer does seemed to be manually traversing the tree, and if the current node matches the criteria, iterating up to the root node and changing the visibilities of all ancestors. It would work, but it seems kind of awkward, because it needs to modify the TreeStore itself and doing manual traversals.
Since I think it would be a common use case to show a matching child node, even if not all of its ancestors match, doesn't (1) have any option for this? Like, keep applying the VisibleFunc to all the descendants of a node that does not match the function, anyway, and automatically make all ancestors visible? Or, is using (2) the only way?
