----- Original Message -----
From: "Einav Cohen" <ecohen@redhat.com> To: "Lior Vernia" <lvernia@redhat.com> Cc: "Eli Mesika" <emesika@redhat.com>, engine-devel@ovirt.org, "Vojtech Szocs" <vszocs@redhat.com>, "Alexander Wels" <awels@redhat.com>, "Daniel Erez" <derez@redhat.com>, "Gilad Chaplik" <gchaplik@redhat.com>, "Alona Kaplan" <alkaplan@redhat.com>, "Tomas Jelinek" <tjelinek@redhat.com> Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2013 4:42:18 PM Subject: Re: [Engine-devel] Sorting in tabs
----- Original Message ----- From: "Lior Vernia" <lvernia@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" <emesika@redhat.com> Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2013 6:46:58 AM
----- Original Message -----
From: "Lior Vernia" <lvernia@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 think that when we will implement column sorting it will fulfill all UI sorting requirements
I believe that the correct thing to do is to "attach" the GUI sorting mechanism to the one in the search mechanism.
thoughts?
But this should be visible , i.e. the search syntax should be changed to reflect this kind of sorting.
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