### Steps to reproduce

1. Have a custom field of type hierarchy that is marked as "Searchable"

2. Provide a value for the custom field on a work package


### What is the buggy behavior?

* Search for the value in the project search


### What is the expected behavior?

1. Have the work package found if the search string matches the value selected for the work package


OR:

1. Remove the option from the custom field form 


### Screenshots and other files

Work package can be filtered for by the value "Berlin"

### <img class="op-uc-image op-uc-image_inline" src="/api/v3/attachments/241533/content">

The same custom field cannot be found by inserting &quot;Berlin&quot; into the search

<img class="op-uc-image op-uc-image_inline" src="/api/v3/attachments/241534/content"> Begin of the deletion

End of the deletion <img class="op-uc-image op-uc-image_inline" src="/api/v3/attachments/241535/content">

The CF is marked as searchable

<img class="op-uc-image op-uc-image_inline" src="/api/v3/attachments/241536/content"> Begin of the insertion

### Information

* the custom values of custom fields of type list do have special handling in `act_as_searchable.rb`


```ruby
def build_custom_field_condition(custom_field_ids)
CustomValue.select("1")
.joins(<<~SQL.squish)
LEFT JOIN custom_options
ON custom_options.custom_field_id = custom_values.custom_field_id
AND custom_options.id::VARCHAR = custom_values.value
SQL
.where(customized_type: name, custom_field_id: custom_field_ids)
.where("customized_id=#{table_name}.id")
.where("(custom_values.value ILIKE ?) OR (custom_options.value ILIKE ?)")
end
```

* usually this kind of code should go into responsibility of the custom field itselfEnd of the insertion