> ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Lior Vernia" <lver...@redhat.com> > Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2013 8:53:59 AM > > > > On 27/06/13 15:37, Einav Cohen wrote: > >> ----- Original Message ----- > >> From: "Eli Mesika" <emes...@redhat.com> > >> Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2013 6:46:58 AM > >> > >> > >> ----- Original Message ----- > >>> From: "Lior Vernia" <lver...@redhat.com> > >>> To: engine-devel@ovirt.org > >>> Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2013 10:12:33 AM > >>> Subject: [Engine-devel] Sorting in tabs > >>> > >>> Hello everyone (UI peeps in particular), > >>> > >>> I've pushed (not yet merged) a patch that would enable us to keep items > >>> in tabs (main/sub) sorted at all times by setting a comparator in > >>> SearchableListModel: > >> > >> But tabs includes only 100 records and supports paging , how you deal with > >> that ??? > > > > if this is in the GUI level, then I assume that the comparator is simply > > comparing the > > items within the current page, and not "globally". > > so the sorting doesn't affect the set of items that is displayed in the > > page (it would > > be the same as before the sorting) - just their order. > > Yes, if I understand correctly how the paging works, Einav is correct - > only the items passed to the UI are sorted. > > > also: @Lior - what happens when the search query contains a "sort by" part? > > there is a chance that the behaivor would be unexpected in this case; > > Yes, I thought about this case, and it may result in a confusing user > experience if developers aren't careful. Together with the issue of > paging, this probably makes this sorting mechanism a better candidate > for use within subtabs rather than main tabs.
note that at some point, I think that we would want to introduce paging also to search- based sub-tabs - it will be useful especially for sub-tabs that potentially display a large number of results (e.g. Disks sub-tab in Storage main tab). In addition, at some point, we would want to get rid of the paging UI as it is now (i.e. "next"/"prev" buttons at the top panel) and move to paging triggered by scroll (i.e. have a very long grid, dynamically loaded as you continue to scroll - similar to the behavior of some e-mail web-clients, for example). In this case, sorting on the client side will make no sense at all (i.e. from the user perspective, only a portion of a very large grid will be sorted, the other portions won't be). So for now - yes, I think it makes sense to introduce your mechanism to all sub-tabs, however in the long-term - we would probably want the search-based sub-tabs (which will support paging) to move to search-based sorting, rather than GUI-based-sorting. BTW (maybe the other GUI maintainers can help me with that one) - what about sub-tabs that are not search-based (i.e. display results from a "regular" query or even from a field within the selected item in the main grid, e.g. Applications in VM) - are these managed via SearchableListModel as well? since the comparator mechanism *is* relevant for them. Also: Worth mentioning "Bug 893999 - webadmin: please allow column sorting", which requests to enable sorting when clicking on a grid-column header; when implementing column-sorting, probably worth attaching your mechanism to it somehow (i.e. clicking on a column header should set the relevant comparator in the relevant SearchableListModel). > > > > > I believe that the correct thing to do is to "attach" the GUI sorting > > mechanism > > to the one in the search mechanism. > > > > thoughts? > > This can be done, however I'm not sure there's much utility in it. Main > tabs are always sorted according to some default ordering even if one > was not entered in the search panel, and this sorting is also performed > consistently with respect to paging. So maybe the right thing to do > would be to just "block" the GUI sorting mechanism for main tabs (i.e. > override the setter method and make it no-op)? yes, and related to what I mentioned above - at some point in the future, we'd might want to block it for search-based sub-tabs as well. > > >> > >> > >>> > >>> http://gerrit.ovirt.org/#/c/15846/ > >>> > >>> If a comparator isn't set, then everything should behave as before. If a > >>> comparator is set, then from that moment on the tab items will be kept > >>> in a SortedSet, so that even if an item is added in a way that doesn't > >>> trigger an event (e.g. getItems().add()) the items will be kept sorted > >>> according to the given comparator. If the comparator is set to null, > >>> from that moment on the tab should revert to its old behaviour. > >>> > >>> You're most welcome to have a look and let me know if this might break > >>> something (remember though that it's not obligatory to set a comparator, > >>> so only possible breakage should be in generic flows). > >>> > >>> Feel free to use it once it's merged; along with SortedListModel, this > >>> should make sorting less painful. Just keep in mind that once you set a > >>> comparator, you can't cast getItems() to a List. This shouldn't be a > >>> problem in general, as mostly it's as useful (and probably more correct) > >>> to cast to a Collection. > >>> > >>> Lior. > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> Engine-devel mailing list > >>> Engine-devel@ovirt.org > >>> http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/engine-devel > >>> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Engine-devel mailing list > >> Engine-devel@ovirt.org > >> http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/engine-devel > >> > _______________________________________________ Engine-devel mailing list Engine-devel@ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/engine-devel
