Uploaded image for project: 'Data Management'
  1. Data Management
  2. DM-11457

Selected table rows should be kept after sorting

    Details

    • Story Points:
      4
    • Epic Link:
    • Sprint:
      SUIT Sprint 2018-02
    • Team:
      Science User Interface

      Description

      In latest Firefly version (dev), after sorting table with selected rows, the rows are no longer selected.

      The checked rows should be still checked after sorting, and after apply/un-apply filters.

        Attachments

          Issue Links

            Activity

            Hide
            loi Loi Ly added a comment -

            This is the expected behavior, in OPS as well.

            Show
            loi Loi Ly added a comment - This is the expected behavior, in OPS as well.
            Hide
            ejoliet Emmanuel Joliet added a comment -

            Oh, ok.

            To me it feels weird that if i select the rows, and sort, i loose my selection.

            But we should leave it for now. If IRSA/LSST want to change it, we''ll change this to "new feature" or "improvement".

            Show
            ejoliet Emmanuel Joliet added a comment - Oh, ok. To me it feels weird that if i select the rows, and sort, i loose my selection. But we should leave it for now. If IRSA/LSST want to change it, we''ll change this to "new feature" or "improvement".
            Hide
            ejoliet Emmanuel Joliet added a comment -

            Xiuqin, i've changed this ticket to improvement because it was always behave the same in ops and in the past.
            I feel that this could be a good improvement: the selected rows in a table should be kept after sorting. We probably put it as part of a different epic and in backlog.

            What do you think?

            Show
            ejoliet Emmanuel Joliet added a comment - Xiuqin, i've changed this ticket to improvement because it was always behave the same in ops and in the past. I feel that this could be a good improvement: the selected rows in a table should be kept after sorting. We probably put it as part of a different epic and in backlog. What do you think?
            Hide
            gpdf Gregory Dubois-Felsmann added a comment - - edited

            I saw long ago that this was marked "Done" and I stopped worrying about it.  But I see that on Ops right now only the first part of the request - don't clear checkbox selections when sorting - was done.  However, the "The checked rows should be still checked ... and after apply/un-apply filters." part was apparently not done, and is really just as important, if not more.

            Sorting and filtering should never change checkbox state.  Also, equally important, the "master checkbox" in the upper left should not change the checkbox state in either direction of rows that are not selected by the current filter (i.e., not visible).  (This cannot be tested now because filtering currently clears all checkboxes.)

            If this is controversial, we'll need a discussion.  Shall I file a new ticket?

            Show
            gpdf Gregory Dubois-Felsmann added a comment - - edited I saw long ago that this was marked "Done" and I stopped worrying about it.  But I see that on Ops right now only the first part of the request - don't clear checkbox selections when sorting - was done.  However, the "The checked rows should be still checked ... and after apply/un-apply filters." part was apparently not done, and is really just as important, if not more. Sorting and filtering should never change checkbox state.  Also, equally important, the "master checkbox" in the upper left should not change the checkbox state in either direction of rows that are not selected by the current filter (i.e., not visible).  (This cannot be tested now because filtering currently clears all checkboxes.) If this is controversial, we'll need a discussion.  Shall I file a new ticket?
            Hide
            loi Loi Ly added a comment -

            There are several issues we need to resolve before it can be implemented the way you've described.
            Imagine a user selected all of the rows, then filter down into a few...

            • download selected:  Is it reasonable to have the user download something they cannot see?
            • filter on selected:  Either from chart, image, or table, should it bring back the invisible rows?
            • how do you unselect the invisible rows?

            Also, there's a technical issue as well.  All along, 'selected rows' is represented as indexes of the current(filtered/sorted) table.  This logic has spread out into other component's code, like chart and image.  In order for this to work, beside fetching the required columns, they need to fetch the row ID of the 'original' results set.  It's definitely something we can do.  But, more thorough regression testing is needed.

            Show
            loi Loi Ly added a comment - There are several issues we need to resolve before it can be implemented the way you've described. Imagine a user selected all of the rows, then filter down into a few... download selected:  Is it reasonable to have the user download something they cannot see? filter on selected:  Either from chart, image, or table, should it bring back the invisible rows? how do you unselect the invisible rows? Also, there's a technical issue as well.  All along, 'selected rows' is represented as indexes of the current(filtered/sorted) table.  This logic has spread out into other component's code, like chart and image.  In order for this to work, beside fetching the required columns, they need to fetch the row ID of the 'original' results set.  It's definitely something we can do.  But, more thorough regression testing is needed.
            Hide
            xiuqin Xiuqin Wu [X] (Inactive) added a comment -

             Loi Ly pointed more issues out. The original issue seems easy, but has high impact. Gregory Dubois-Felsmann, please file a new ticket with Firefly_CCB label. 

            Show
            xiuqin Xiuqin Wu [X] (Inactive) added a comment -   Loi Ly pointed more issues out. The original issue seems easy, but has high impact. Gregory Dubois-Felsmann , please file a new ticket with Firefly_CCB label. 

              People

              • Assignee:
                loi Loi Ly
                Reporter:
                ejoliet Emmanuel Joliet
                Reviewers:
                Cindy Wang [X] (Inactive), Emmanuel Joliet, Tatiana Goldina
                Watchers:
                Cindy Wang [X] (Inactive), Emmanuel Joliet, Gregory Dubois-Felsmann, Loi Ly, Tatiana Goldina, Xiuqin Wu [X] (Inactive)
              • Votes:
                0 Vote for this issue
                Watchers:
                6 Start watching this issue

                Dates

                • Created:
                  Updated:
                  Resolved:

                  Summary Panel