<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><oembed><type>video</type><version>1.0</version><html>&lt;iframe src=&quot;https://www.loom.com/embed/e915bcae39f5473f8cf3bacf73de3ebd&quot; frameborder=&quot;0&quot; width=&quot;1662&quot; height=&quot;1246&quot; webkitallowfullscreen mozallowfullscreen allowfullscreen&gt;&lt;/iframe&gt;</html><height>1246</height><width>1662</width><provider_name>Loom</provider_name><provider_url>https://www.loom.com</provider_url><thumbnail_height>1246</thumbnail_height><thumbnail_width>1662</thumbnail_width><thumbnail_url>https://cdn.loom.com/sessions/thumbnails/e915bcae39f5473f8cf3bacf73de3ebd-6105164bc44e91c0.gif</thumbnail_url><duration>95.402</duration><title>Fixing Autocomplete With Composite Targets</title><description>This Loom explains the difference between a standard Autocomplete implementation and Autocomplete Lsquare, focusing on how both assume string inputs and require special handling for composite types. The speaker notes they added a string check because Autocomplete can provide a string when it does not find a result. To be conformant, they split the selected target into separate text and UID components, since Autocomplete only works with text and the result mapping uses text matching. They mention that the page options hash is from title to UID, and that if there is no match it may be null, but the updated setup works as expected.</description></oembed>