Docs: explain mutually exclusive (disjoint) groups

[Pratyush020505]

User description

This PR documents how to create mutually exclusive (disjoint) groups using dynamic groups and free search expressions, as discussed in #7049.

---

PR Type

Documentation

---

Description

• Documents how to create mutually exclusive groups using dynamic groups

• Provides practical example with Read, Skimmed, Pending groups

• Explains using free search expressions with NOT operators

• Clarifies this approach doesn't affect static groups behavior

---

Diagram Walkthrough

flowchart LR
  A["Dynamic Groups"] -- "with free search expressions" --> B["Mutually Exclusive Groups"]
  C["Static Groups"] -- "unchanged behavior" --> D["Multiple Group Membership"]
  B --> E["Example: Read/Skimmed/Pending"]

Loading

File Walkthrough

Relevant files

Documentation

groups.md Add documentation for mutually exclusive groups                    en/finding-sorting-and-cleaning-entries/groups.md Added new section explaining mutually exclusive (disjoint) groups concept Documented approach using dynamic groups with free search expressions Provided practical example with three groups: Read, Skimmed, Pending Explained NOT operator usage for excluding entries from groups +24/-0

---

[qodo-free-for-open-source-projects]

PR Compliance Guide 🔍

Below is a summary of compliance checks for this PR:

Security Compliance
🟢	No security concerns identified No security vulnerabilities detected by AI analysis. Human verification advised for critical code.
Ticket Compliance
⚪	🎫 No ticket provided Create ticket/issue
Codebase Duplication Compliance
⚪	Codebase context is not defined Follow the guide to enable codebase context checks.
Custom Compliance
🟢	Generic: Comprehensive Audit Trails Objective: To create a detailed and reliable record of critical system actions for security analysis and compliance. Status: Passed Learn more about managing compliance generic rules or creating your own custom rules
	Generic: Meaningful Naming and Self-Documenting Code Objective: Ensure all identifiers clearly express their purpose and intent, making code self-documenting Status: Passed Learn more about managing compliance generic rules or creating your own custom rules
	Generic: Robust Error Handling and Edge Case Management Objective: Ensure comprehensive error handling that provides meaningful context and graceful degradation Status: Passed Learn more about managing compliance generic rules or creating your own custom rules
	Generic: Secure Error Handling Objective: To prevent the leakage of sensitive system information through error messages while providing sufficient detail for internal debugging. Status: Passed Learn more about managing compliance generic rules or creating your own custom rules
	Generic: Secure Logging Practices Objective: To ensure logs are useful for debugging and auditing without exposing sensitive information like PII, PHI, or cardholder data. Status: Passed Learn more about managing compliance generic rules or creating your own custom rules
	Generic: Security-First Input Validation and Data Handling Objective: Ensure all data inputs are validated, sanitized, and handled securely to prevent vulnerabilities Status: Passed Learn more about managing compliance generic rules or creating your own custom rules
Update

Compliance status legend

🟢 - Fully Compliant
🟡 - Partial Compliant
🔴 - Not Compliant
⚪ - Requires Further Human Verification
🏷️ - Compliance label

[qodo-free-for-open-source-projects]

PR Code Suggestions ✨

Explore these optional code suggestions:

Category	Suggestion	Impact
Possible issue	Correct logical flaw in example To ensure the example for mutually exclusive groups is logically correct, update the Skimmed group's search expression to also exclude entries with the read keyword. en/finding-sorting-and-cleaning-entries/groups.md [227-232] - **Read** group: keywords = read - **Skimmed** group: - keywords = skimmed + keywords = skimmed AND NOT keywords = read - **Pending** group: NOT (keywords = read OR keywords = skimmed) Apply / Chat Suggestion importance[1-10]: 8 __ Why: The suggestion correctly identifies a logical flaw in the documentation's example, which fails to demonstrate the concept of "mutually exclusive groups" as intended. Applying the fix is crucial for the accuracy and clarity of the new section.	Medium
Update

[Pratyush020505]

The lint warnings shown under “unchanged files with check annotations” appear to be pre-existing in files not modified by this PR. My changes are limited to groups.md only.

[koppor]

@Pratyush020505 Plese link issues of other repositories with full link.

[koppor]

The lint warnings shown under “unchanged files with check annotations” appear to be pre-existing in files not modified by this PR.

As good open-source citizen you could have filed a pull request fixing that. Meanwhile, I did this for myself.

[koppor]

I think, English is hard to understand for you. This markdown contains more than 100 lines with different topics. Too complex to understand.

A documentation is made for humans - with a kind of logical flow. - You just added some AI-generated text at the end of the docs. This is not OK.

[koppor]

@Pratyush020505 Plese link issues of other repositories with full link.

Not followed, but some code committed. I conclude: Not reading and following reviewer comments.