View Issue Details
| ID | Project | Category | View Status | Date Submitted | Last Update |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0006559 | Taler | wallet-core | public | 2020-09-03 11:43 | 2021-08-24 14:23 |
| Reporter | grote | Assigned To | grote | Resolution deadline | |
| Implementer | Reviewer | ||||
| Release signed by | Deployed by | ||||
| Verifier | Communicator | ||||
| Data protection authority notification required | No | ||||
| CSIRT notification required | No | ||||
| Estimated effort (hours) | Actual effort (hours) | 0 | |||
| Fast-track | No | ||||
| Work package | none | ||||
| Priority | normal | Severity | minor | Reproducibility | have not tried |
| Status | closed | Resolution | fixed | ||
| Target Version | 0.8 | Fixed in Version | 0.8 | ||
| Summary | 0006559: Transactions not sorted as documented | ||||
| Description | The transactions currently returned by wallet core are not sorted as documented. The Android wallet currently needs to re-sort them. | ||||
| Tags | No tags attached. | ||||
| The wallet currently sorts transactions like this: [ non-pending, ascending by time ] [ pending, ascending by time ] For the UI to show them in descending order, it just needs to reverse the list. No re-sorting required. It's better to return the transactions in ascending order, since "ascending" is usually the default sorting order, and it is absolutely trivial for the UI to reverse the list before rendering. Of course the wallet-core docs must be adjusted then. | |
| > For the UI to show them in descending order, it just needs to reverse the list. No re-sorting required. Last time I checked, I needed to do a complete re-sort, as otherwise pending ended up at the bottom. > It's better to return the transactions in ascending order, since "ascending" is usually the default sorting order When is it the default sorting order? AFAIK, the wallet API should sort transactions how wallets would show them. | |
| Can you point out an example where the sorting is wrong (not just reversed)? We should have an integration test for that! Though the current integration test already checks the order for transactions. Maybe the pending transactions are sometimes not ordered correctly? (Regarding default sorting order: Pretty much everything that sorts numbers/dates sorts them ascending by default. SQL, Python, JavaScript, etc. TBH the main reason that I don't want to switch is that the integration tests assume this order for transactions in various places, which is harder to change *and* goes against the "natural order" ;-) ) | |
| Actually, the order of pending and non-pending transactions was reversed. It was [p1 p2] [f1 f2] instead of [f1 f2] [p1 p2] Now by just calling .reverse, the transactions will be sorted in "UI view order". | |
| Date Modified | Username | Field | Change |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2020-09-03 11:43 | grote | New Issue | |
| 2020-09-03 11:43 | grote | Status | new => assigned |
| 2020-09-03 11:43 | grote | Assigned To | => Florian Dold |
| 2020-09-04 06:24 | Florian Dold | Note Added: 0016833 | |
| 2020-09-04 06:25 | Florian Dold | Assigned To | Florian Dold => grote |
| 2020-09-04 06:25 | Florian Dold | Status | assigned => feedback |
| 2020-09-04 12:02 | grote | Note Added: 0016844 | |
| 2020-09-04 12:19 | Florian Dold | Note Added: 0016846 | |
| 2020-09-09 07:40 | Florian Dold | Status | feedback => informing |
| 2020-09-09 07:40 | Florian Dold | Resolution | open => fixed |
| 2020-09-09 07:40 | Florian Dold | Note Added: 0016941 | |
| 2020-10-03 12:08 | Christian Grothoff | Fixed in Version | => 0.8 |
| 2020-10-03 12:10 | Christian Grothoff | Target Version | => 0.8 |
| 2021-08-24 14:23 | Christian Grothoff | Status | informing => closed |
| 2023-04-13 18:36 | Florian Dold | Category | wallet (TS core) => wallet-core |