You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
The display of A records in a forward zone is sorted by their value (IP address) which seems like an odd choice. Most other DNS interfaces will display them in alphabetical order.
CNAMEs are a bit better, but still bizarre. b-h are alphabetical, but are followed by the records that start with 'a'.
I think sorting should work like this:
A - alphabetical by record name (no ip_sort)
CNAME - alphabetical by record name (no ip_sort)
MX - numerically by Priority(?) (yes ip_sort)
TXT - alphabetical by record name (no ip_sort)
SRV - alphabetical by record name (no ip_sort)
PTR - numerically by record name (yes ip_sort)
NS - alphabetically by record value (no ip_sort)
I see the code in zone-records.php, so if the above makes sense I'll try and get you a pull request for the change.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
I took your proposed sort orders and made them the default order and then also added the ability for users to choose which column to sort by. This framework is also available for other modules to use.
The display of A records in a forward zone is sorted by their value (IP address) which seems like an odd choice. Most other DNS interfaces will display them in alphabetical order.
CNAMEs are a bit better, but still bizarre. b-h are alphabetical, but are followed by the records that start with 'a'.
I think sorting should work like this:
A - alphabetical by record name (no ip_sort)
CNAME - alphabetical by record name (no ip_sort)
MX - numerically by Priority(?) (yes ip_sort)
TXT - alphabetical by record name (no ip_sort)
SRV - alphabetical by record name (no ip_sort)
PTR - numerically by record name (yes ip_sort)
NS - alphabetically by record value (no ip_sort)
I see the code in zone-records.php, so if the above makes sense I'll try and get you a pull request for the change.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: