Jump to content
Dave Ramsey

Default sort order override

Recommended Posts

Dave Ramsey    1

Hello, my ad-hoc steering committee...

I'm shortly going to be tackling allowing an override of the default sort order.  Once implemented, there would be a preference to override the default sort order for all(-ish) queries to sort alphabetically, rather than by export / creation order.  I would love to get some feedback on this idea, in particular that I'm not either targeting too narrowly or too broadly.

My thought is that this could be best implemented using 3 checkboxes.

  1. Sort almost everything alphabetically by default
  2. Sort Layouts alphabetically by default
  3. Sort Scripts alphabetically by default

I think that for most users, sorting fields, TOs, references, etc by name by default will not cause a problem.  Most of them won't even need a preference for that.  They'd like it always on.  I have, however, identified users that would like to retain general access to the imported sort order.

I've identified Scripts and Layouts as two elements that very commonly are manually ordered.  Most developers will group similar layouts and scripts, even assuming that they have a naming convention that would allow for meaningful interaction with these elements (say, Scripts) alphabetically.

I also don't think there's any value to sorting Layout Objects in anything other than import order (by default), as the import order is a parent-child aware z-order.

I'm also thinking that this will necessitate the addition of a column in the Results pane that stores the creation / import ordinal so that you have the ability to restore that order (or reverse that order) if necessary for a single query.

Questions:

  1. Can you think of any other elements within FileMaker whose creation / manual order is far more important than their alphabetical order?
  2. This is oft requested enough that I'm considering changing the first checkbox (sort most items alphabetically) to ON by default.  I think I will have fewer users asking how to change it back than I currently have users asking how to turn it on.  Thoughts?
  3. While neither the Hierarchy Browser nor the Columnar Browser have a base implementation for overriding the sort order on an area by area basis, I might try to invent one if there's huge desire for it.  I still that most users will never tweak the default, but I'm willing to be proven wrong.

In a fever-dream, I thought that instead of adding checkboxes to the preferences, I would add menu items that could be toggled on and off.  This only becomes of use if somebody sees being able to override this on a document-by-document basis, and really regularly, as a critical requirement.  If this is you, I'd like to hear from you.  I'm pretty sure that the overwhelming majority of users will turn it on, and never mess with it.  Most will never even override that default sort to use the new import ordinal column.

Any other thoughts or ideas related to this topic would be most appreciated.

 

Thank you very much,

Dave Ramsey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dave Ramsey    1

For those who were interested, version 1.2.3 has been released with support for this feature.  Thanks!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Similar Content

    • By William Slim
      Hi all,
      Figures for broken references differ completely on the Report Card vs the 'Broken References' node if FMPerception. Some figures, such as 'Impacted Layouts' are empty in the report card '--' yet may have '24' in the Broken Refs node.
      What is the difference between them/how should they be interpreted? 
      I'm guessing the node should be relied upon but I'm having difficulty tying up figures between the two even at a headline level. In this particular instance: 'Fields Impacted' on the report card states '15' yet <Field Missing> and 'Empty Field Reference' are both in the 60's.
      Thanks in advance,
      Lee
       
    • By Hoytopher
      Apologies if this is in the wrong forum, new to FileMaker and unsure of how to articulate what I'm trying to achieve.
      I am trying to reorganize a database using FileMaker. My client's work is literary, and wants to be able to sort agents/editors by their publishing house/imprint. I am using the Personnel Files starter solution, as it comes with some of the features I'm looking for, particularly the "Personnel List". A quick summary of relationships:
      Publishing Houses [House] are parent companies. Sometimes they do their own publishing, but it's often left to children companies, or Imprints. There are House-specific publishers, editors, etc [People].
      Imprints [Imprint] are composed the exact same way, with Imprint-specific People. They are owned by parent companies. For simplicity, lets assume that every House has 5 Imprints.
      Editors/Publishers/etc [People] have their own specific pages. House/Imprint use duplicate layouts (companies), same with different categories of People.
      I want to achieve the following:
      The ability to use the Personnel list to sort either alphabetically by name (as is done currently). I also want to be able to sort by Publishing House -> Imprint -> [People]. What do I need to know to do this? I envision a list of all Houses. Then, clicking on one, the imprints show up in an adjacent list. Clicking on the Imprint, People working for that Imprint pop up, and then clicking on one of them leads to their Details page (currently set up). In order to view details on the House itself, the House's own page would be set up as an Imprint.
      What are the gaps in my knowledge here? Where should I start? I am trying to create a system of increasing specification for finding data quickly.
       
    • By Poruchan
      Hi,
      I was here a while back learning how to build a horse racing form. Thanks to those that helped, I've been producing a form for several months now. However, I never did figure out how to make the track averages and have FM calculate my speed figures. I'd like to give it another shot, as it will save me a tremendous amount of time. Right now I am doing all the dirty work in excel and importing the track averages and speed figures into FM -- so I'm using FM as a desktop layout program, which I suppose sounds crazy.
      I can get FM to produce averages in a summary report, but I need separate summaries to get my speed ratings (I think).
      I'll try and attach a photo of a mock-up layout that might be nice. A few things: There are ten tracks, and over 8oo possible race types i.e Tok_A1_12D (Tokyo, Allowance 1, 1200, Dirt). And I only indicate race types for races on dry tracks, so there is that attribute. Also all my records  are imported into a single table - so 150,000 race records so far. Anyway, I thought things like 'do I really need to make 800 separate summary calculations?' But, if that's the way it is, then fine.
      And as before, I still do think I have some pretty basic conceptual misunderstandings about FM -- I appreciate all the help I can get -- even the slightest pushes in the right direction.
      R Ave = Class Average (for race type)
      W Ave = Win Average  (for race type)
       
      Thanks,
      Paul
       

    • By salim
      Hi,
      i want to sort my records based on "three(3) of the most active customers", note..(i can sort my data by the most active customers but then i want to be able to only have 3 records in my found set. How do i achieve this.?
    • By datalink
      I need a way to allow operators to move portal rows up and down in a portal.  Is there a best practice that folks like?  Perhaps point me in the direction of the preferred solution.
      Thanks in advance!
×

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.