Sorting #12

Open
kinlane opened this Issue Apr 14, 2017 · 7 comments

Comments

Projects
None yet
4 participants
@kinlane
Contributor

kinlane commented Apr 14, 2017

How will we be sorting information. There is no sorting capability in the current design.

@NeilMcKechnie

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@NeilMcKechnie

NeilMcKechnie Aug 10, 2017

We need at least Alphabetical and Proximity (if a search reference location is included). A third option is Relevance which opens a big can of worms about how relevance is calculated. We could just keep that can closed for now though, leave it as a sorting option, and let each implementer decide how to calculate and sort via Relevance.

We need at least Alphabetical and Proximity (if a search reference location is included). A third option is Relevance which opens a big can of worms about how relevance is calculated. We could just keep that can closed for now though, leave it as a sorting option, and let each implementer decide how to calculate and sort via Relevance.

@timgdavies

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@timgdavies

timgdavies Aug 22, 2017

Contributor

A last-updated (descending) sort will be important for synchronisation use-cases.

Contributor

timgdavies commented Aug 22, 2017

A last-updated (descending) sort will be important for synchronisation use-cases.

@kinlane

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@kinlane

kinlane Sep 1, 2017

Contributor

Suggesting we run with

sortby ([fieldname],last-updated)
order (asc,desc)

leaving proximity for futue release, and possibility limited to HSDA search.

combinging simplicity, best practices, and above feedback.

Contributor

kinlane commented Sep 1, 2017

Suggesting we run with

sortby ([fieldname],last-updated)
order (asc,desc)

leaving proximity for futue release, and possibility limited to HSDA search.

combinging simplicity, best practices, and above feedback.

@kinlane kinlane added v1.2 hsda labels Sep 1, 2017

@timgdavies

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@timgdavies

timgdavies Sep 13, 2017

Contributor

Would this only allow sorting by fields in the top resource? Or would we allow a syntax of field paths to access sub-resources in the /full / /complete representations (or even when /complete is not requested)?

For example, I might want to search for organizations, but sort the results based on thee funding source of their services.

Could this be expressed as:

?sortby=organizations/services/funding/source&order=asc

Contributor

timgdavies commented Sep 13, 2017

Would this only allow sorting by fields in the top resource? Or would we allow a syntax of field paths to access sub-resources in the /full / /complete representations (or even when /complete is not requested)?

For example, I might want to search for organizations, but sort the results based on thee funding source of their services.

Could this be expressed as:

?sortby=organizations/services/funding/source&order=asc

@kinlane

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@kinlane

kinlane Sep 14, 2017

Contributor

with this release I kept just top level. Plan is to go next level with next release. Trying to minimize the change. Thanks for brining up!

Contributor

kinlane commented Sep 14, 2017

with this release I kept just top level. Plan is to go next level with next release. Trying to minimize the change. Thanks for brining up!

@rasmus-storjohann-PG

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@rasmus-storjohann-PG

rasmus-storjohann-PG Jan 23, 2018

A possible alternative to the order parameter is an optional - prefix on each of the fields passed to sortby, that way it's possible to sort ascending by one field and descending by another. Not sure if this is functionality that is useful or just making things more complicated.

rasmus-storjohann-PG commented Jan 23, 2018

A possible alternative to the order parameter is an optional - prefix on each of the fields passed to sortby, that way it's possible to sort ascending by one field and descending by another. Not sure if this is functionality that is useful or just making things more complicated.

@kinlane

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@kinlane

kinlane Jan 24, 2018

Contributor

@rasmus-storjohann-PG I like that concept. Will be evaluating.

Contributor

kinlane commented Jan 24, 2018

@rasmus-storjohann-PG I like that concept. Will be evaluating.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment