#2336 - [ocPortal 9]Catalogs Don't Sort Correctly

By mythus
Added 22nd Mar 2016, 10:18 AM
1 view

Identifier	#2336
Issue type	Minor issue (breaks specific functionality)
Title	[ocPortal 9]Catalogs Don't Sort Correctly
Status	Closed (cannot reproduce)
Handling member	Chris Graham
Addon	catalogues
Description	This issue is in regards to ocPortal version 9 series - I do not know if it still exists in Composr, but since I didn't have the option to choose ocPortal... Anyway, in the Catalogs feature of ocPortal 9, you can set a field to sort by ascending or descending order. I've done this with the cost field, wanting to sort things in order from lowest price to highest price. It sorts fine if the prices are the same amount of digits, 2 numbers each price for example. But, if the price has three numbers in it when the other prices have 2 numbers in them, it places that 3 number price at the top of the list despite it being a higher price. A screenshot is supplied showing this in action.
Steps to reproduce	Make a catalog with a price, cost, or some other number field. Have that field be the sort field with either ascending or descending sort order. Make a few entries with similar numbers of digits for that field Make another entry with one more digit for that field. See the sort order now messed up.
Funded?	No

The system will post a comment when this issue is modified (e.g., status changes). To be notified of this, click "Enable comment notifications".

Rating

Unrated

Comments

By Guest posted 22nd Mar 2016, 10:18 AM

By Guest posted 22nd Mar 2016, 4:29 PM

Works for me on the latest v9, see attached screenshot. Are you sure your price field is the only order field you have, and that you're on the latest v9? There have been sorting bugs in the past, and sources/catalogues.php is the main file that needs to be up-to-date.

My best guess is that you're on an older version with a sorting bug that forces it into non-DB sorting, which would likely be doing a string sort rather than an integer sort.

But I checked the code carefully, and I don't think this could happen on the latest code.

By Guest posted 22nd Mar 2016, 4:30 PM

By Guest posted 22nd Mar 2016, 4:31 PM

In fact, I seem to still have FTP access to your site, so I'll look directly for you.

By Guest posted 22nd Mar 2016, 4:36 PM

Ah, you have the field type as "A brief line of text". So text sort should be expected.

By Guest posted 25th Mar 2016, 11:27 AM

Well yes Chris Graham, what other field should I put there for it to expect numbers? There is no number field - at least one that I could find.

By Guest posted 25th Mar 2016, 11:30 AM

I believe it's labelled 'Integer'. However, you'll need to make it as a new field then delete the old one, as it can't switch underlying database types (it can switch between equivalently-stored types only).

By Guest posted 25th Mar 2016, 11:35 AM

Ah so it is. Float Integer to be precise for my use purposes. Thanks. Assuming that it sorts correctly, this bug is indeed a nonexistant issue.