Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Table view columns should use a numeric-sort algorithm #3231

Closed
wiz opened this issue Sep 9, 2019 · 1 comment · Fixed by #4222
Closed

Table view columns should use a numeric-sort algorithm #3231

wiz opened this issue Sep 9, 2019 · 1 comment · Fixed by #4222

Comments

@wiz
Copy link
Contributor

wiz commented Sep 9, 2019

Screen Shot 2019-09-09 at 22 34 48

@wiz wiz changed the title Table view column sort should use a human-numeric-sort algorithm Table view columns should use a numeric-sort algorithm Sep 9, 2019
@niyid
Copy link
Contributor

niyid commented Sep 22, 2019

@freimair
Who is assigning? I suppose this issue is to be resolved in all table views and not only Bonds view?

@wiz wiz mentioned this issue Sep 24, 2019
cd2357 added a commit to cd2357/bisq that referenced this issue May 1, 2020
The table in the BondsView uses string sorting by default. This results in unexpected behavior when sorting non-string columns.

This commit adds custom comparators to the numeric columns to address that.

Fixes bisq-network#3231
cd2357 added a commit to cd2357/bisq that referenced this issue May 1, 2020
The table in the BondsView uses string sorting by default. This results in unexpected behavior when sorting non-string columns.

This commit adds custom comparators to the numeric columns to address that.

Fixes bisq-network#3231

Signed-off-by: cd2357 <[email protected]>
cd2357 added a commit to cd2357/bisq that referenced this issue May 1, 2020
The table in the BondsView uses string sorting by default. This results in unexpected behavior when sorting non-string columns.

This commit adds custom comparators to the numeric columns to address that.

Fixes bisq-network#3231
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

3 participants