Ability to filter desired terms

[jeffpaul]

Splitting this out from #28:

filtering in/out of desired terms (aka whitelist/blacklist)

This would allow site owners to either (1) limit automated tags to existing tags within their site or (2) enter a list of tags that should NOT be saved if they happen to be returned from an AI API (e.g., competitor names).

[TylerB24890]

I've spent some time thinking about this and putting together an MVP approach locally. I think what I have could work, but we probably want to spend some time discussing UI/UX of this, especially with the plan to redesign the settings pages.

On the Image Processing settings page there is a new select box "Filter Automated Tags" with the options "Allowed Tags" and "Disabled Tags",

Depending on the selection, another input becomes available. These inputs are controlled by the existing choices.js package.

Allowed Tags:

By default all existing tags are selected. Users can deselect tags they do not want to be returned. (Is this irrelevant since the tags already exist and can't technically be "disabled"?)

The tags fetched are retrieved from the selected "Tag taxonomy" from the same options page.

Default View: (all tags)

Search View:

When the form is submitted the term_id's for each of the selected terms are saved to the option in an array. Then when tags are generated we compare the term names against the tag names and only allow those found in this array.

NOTE: The duplicate tags found in the search dropdown are not intentional. This is a bug that will be resolved before submitting a PR.

Disabled Tags:

"Disabled Tags" are saved in an array as strings, exactly as shown. When tags are generated they are compared against this list. If a tag is found in this list it is excluded from the saved tags.

If this sounds like an acceptable approach let me know and I'll work to wrap this up and submit a PR. Here is the branch for reference: feature/issue-50-tag-limiting-v2

[jeffpaul]

@TylerB24890 Yes there is a larger Settings page revamp coming, but I would not hold on the overall work here as this can be integrated into that revamp work. That being said, I think the approach here makes sense and agree the default behavior would be None as shown in the first screenshot. If you'd like any designs/UX generated to help move this along, let me know and I'll try to chase that down for you.

[TylerB24890]

@TylerB24890 Yes there is a larger Settings page revamp coming, but I would not hold on the overall work here as this can be integrated into that revamp work. That being said, I think the approach here makes sense and agree the default behavior would be None as shown in the first screenshot. If you'd like any designs/UX generated to help move this along, let me know and I'll try to chase that down for you.

Thanks, @jeffpaul !

I think I can wrap up the main engineering functionality and circle back to the UI portion of it after if we feel the need. I'll work to wrap this up and will follow up after to discuss any needed UI/UX updates.