# User manual recursive browse example 'bug'

**URL:** <https://forum.inductiveautomation.com/t/user-manual-recursive-browse-example-bug/38201>\
**Category:** Ignition\
**Tags:** ignition80\
**Created:** [August 30, 2020, 6:54pm UTC](https://forum.inductiveautomation.com/t/user-manual-recursive-browse-example-bug/38201 "2020-08-30T18:54:01Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 2\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![nminchin](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/inductiveautomation/user_avatar/forum.inductiveautomation.com/nminchin/32/6911_2.png) [@nminchin](https://forum.inductiveautomation.com/u/nminchin)\
**Post date:** [August 30, 2020, 6:54pm UTC](https://forum.inductiveautomation.com/t/user-manual-recursive-browse-example-bug/38201/1 "2020-08-30T18:54:01Z")

</div>

[https://docs.inductiveautomation.com/display/DOC80/system.tag.browse](https://docs.inductiveautomation.com/display/DOC80/system.tag.browse)

[https://docs.inductiveautomation.com/display/DOC80/system.tag.configure](https://docs.inductiveautomation.com/display/DOC80/system.tag.configure)

The `browseTags` example in these user manual sections have a bug, where supplying a filter will 9 times out of 10 not get you the results you were expecting. If you supply a filter that excludes returning udt instances or folders (e.g. specifying a name filter, tag type, data type filter etc.), then the function will _not_ recurse. The function is missing another call to the system.tag.browse function which doesn’t have a filter which looks for tags with children.  
E.g. [System.tag.browse OR in filter](http://forum.inductiveautomation.com/t/system-tag-browse-or-in-filter/37111/6)

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![nminchin](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/inductiveautomation/user_avatar/forum.inductiveautomation.com/nminchin/32/6911_2.png) [@nminchin](https://forum.inductiveautomation.com/u/nminchin)\
**Post date:** [September 24, 2020, 10:02pm UTC](https://forum.inductiveautomation.com/t/user-manual-recursive-browse-example-bug/38201/2 "2020-09-24T22:02:57Z")

</div>

Looks like this has been fixed now 🙂
