Fix/Reschedule doesn't work on cards in filtered deck

[L-M-Sherlock]

fix #3439

A similar function may also need to be fixed:

anki/rslib/src/search/sqlwriter.rs

Lines 484 to 495 in f3b0afc

	fn write_deck_id_with_children(&mut self, deck_id: DeckId) -> Result<()> {
	if let Some(parent) = self.col.get_deck(deck_id)? {
	let ids = self.col.storage.deck_id_with_children(&parent)?;
	let mut buf = String::new();
	ids_to_string(&mut buf, &ids);
	write!(self.sql, "c.did in {}", buf,).unwrap();
	} else {
	self.sql.push_str("false")
	}
	Ok(())
	}

[dae]

These are currently documented as not matching cards in filtered decks:

    /// Matches cards in a list of decks (original_deck_id is not checked).
    DeckIdsWithoutChildren(String),
    /// Matches cards in a deck or its children (original_deck_id is not
    /// checked).
    DeckIdWithChildren(DeckId),

I've done a brief scan over the existing usages, and didn't notice any cases where the change is likely to break things, but it's not how they were originally intended to behave, so I get a bit nervous about changing them. Any thoughts on this change @RumovZ?

[RumovZ]

Wouldn't that at least break (or alter) user searches containing did:...?

Looks like you've added DeckIdsWithoutChildren to avoid bugs by forcing explicitness. As it seems the original deck id is a similar source of issues, maybe it would be best to make that explicit, too:

DeckIds {
    ids: String,
    with_children: bool,
    with_filtered: bool,
}

[brishtibheja]

Wouldn't that at least break (or alter) user searches containing did:...?

That isn't documented anywhere, so do users use this search? I think most wouldn't be aware.

[RumovZ]

It's probably not used much, but might still be useful to add-ons and power users.
In any case, I don't see an argument for breaking any compatibility when it's so easy to support both use cases.

[dae]

On making with_filtered explicit: my first thought was "good idea, why didn't I think of that?". :-) Then I noticed a few things:

• One of our current two cases uses a number, not a string of numbers, so merging gets a little more complicated
• The current behavior of not including filtered decks in a did:xxx search is inconsistent with a deck:xxx search
• I can't think of many cases where one would want to exclude the filtered cards, and in those cases, it's easy to exclude them from the search. Whereas we provide no existing way to include filtered cards in the search when searching via deck id.

Given the above, I feel like changing the docs might be the simplest way forward. Merging without feedback to keep things moving forward, but happy to discuss/change/revert if you feel strongly.