Bug/57577 broken ordering by multi value custom fields #16762
Conversation
toy
force-pushed
the
bug/57577-broken-ordering-by-multi-value-custom-fields
branch
from
8b910da
to
1051935
Compare
Switch to using mail instead of id as agreed, as array can't contain different types and mail is an unique string. This should not be a security concern, as minimal information is exposed
toy
force-pushed
the
bug/57577-broken-ordering-by-multi-value-custom-fields
branch
from
1051935
to
efe8cf7
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Apart from the one tiny naming issue, the changes are good. So merge at will once that is resolved.
The structure of the commits really helped me work through the PR. Thanks for that.
It appears to me that at least part of the performance problems related to sorting by multi value user custom fields are already resolved by this PR. At least on the data I have available, the performance was no longer abhorrent.
You were right about the need to have the selected values for multi fields ordered in the same way as is now used when ordering work packages and projects. That can be a different topic so please open a ticket for this.
| project_with_cf_value(*id_by_value.fetch_values("3")), # 3 | ||
| project_with_cf_value(*id_by_value.fetch_values("3", "20")), # 3, 20 | ||
| project_with_cf_value(*id_by_value.fetch_values("20")), # 20 | ||
| project_without_cf_value # TODO: decide on order of absent values | ||
| ] |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
👍 for adding the additional cases where the same value is permutated.
…om field is unexpected
❤️
Yes it should be ~3 times faster after this PR
👍 |
toy
force-pushed
the
bug/57577-broken-ordering-by-multi-value-custom-fields
branch
from
efe8cf7
to
c768f8b
Compare
toy
deleted the
bug/57577-broken-ordering-by-multi-value-custom-fields
branch
Ticket
OP#57577
What are you trying to accomplish?
Fix inconsistencies of ordering by multi value custom fields (list, user, version). Preparing for OP#57305
Merge checklist