Default Sort per Db as config option

Ideas & Features
1

On a daily basis have to adjust new views to be Creation Date > Descending.
But I think this should be a setting in the Db configuration page.

Default sort of dialogs in to-one relations in fibery is by Name. I hardly ever use sort by Name.

Also, it would be nice to have a default sort for relationship collection field views:

image
image921Ɨ405 24.3 KB

1 Like
2

Why do you say this? Which views are you talking about?
I just created a table view and there was no sort applied by default.

3

This would be useful I thinkā€¦ together with default pinning, filters and colouring. :slightly_smiling_face:

1 Like
4

You are right! I updated the screenshot in the post now, thanks. I was confusing single select fields sort order vs collection view sort order.

Still, the single select is by default by Name. So this was what I referred to:

This

image
image1221Ɨ499 43.6 KB

and this

image
image1252Ɨ414 21.4 KB

5

I donā€™t think you mean ā€˜single selectā€™ do you? They should be sorted by rank.
Itā€™s true that the dialogs for linking related entities default to alphabetical name order.

6

Correct again, single select is another field type. I mean dialogs for linked related entities.

1 Like
7

Out of interest, what are the most common sort orders you prefer to use?

8

Iā€™ll chime in because I asked for this recently and if im not mistaken its recent change that went under radar (but i might be mistaken): Compact Relation view not sorted by rank - #3 by RonMakesSystems

I usually just remove the sorting and sort by rank. Which is the default for all other views so Iā€™d expect the same default here. But maybe @Yuri_BC has a different thought.

9

I think the compact relation view not being sorted by rank is a different issue, since it relates to how already-linked items are ordered, which is slightly different to the default sort order in the selection dialog for choosing new entities.

10

I think there might by a miscommunication. I meant the sort order for the selection when choosing new entities. Both here and in the bug report above. Did @Yuri_BC mean something else?

If my memory serves me right (again, no one confirmed or denied this yet :smiling_face_with_tear:), a month ago the default (when nothing was set) sort for unselected entities was done by name. This default was maintained, but the option to remove the default and sort by rank instead (when the default set ā€œSort by nameā€ is removed) was added.

11

OK, we misunderstood each other.
I had a recollection that there was a bug with the sort order of linked items.
But probably also a bug with not correctly implementing the sort functionality on the selection dialog as well :person_shrugging:

Anyway, if all is working bug free, then indeed, the designed behaviour is that relation field dialogs sort by name unless explicitly removed, but weā€™ve logged an insight that this is not desirable for all users in all cases.
No promises on anything getting changed soon though Iā€™m afraid

12

Good question!

  1. Creation Date - Descending (90% if the databases) I prefer more than Modification Date because of my work style as heavy content creator:
  • Mental timeline anchoring ā€” I remember ā€œI started that two days agoā€, and that orientation is lost when sorting by modification date.
  • Focus-driven work ā€” I care more about starting meaningful things than reacting to minor edits (which often donā€™t reflect real progress).

  1. Importance/Urgency Weight (Lookup) - Ascending

  2. Custom Date (Meeting Date) - Descending

  3. Modification Date - For linking entities in a collaboration environment where users contribute to and update entities. E.g. a document someone just updated during a meeting or discussion.

13

Sorting by rank, why would you want that? it changes with drag dropping and essentially adds new stuff to the bottom.

Something else related to sorting and empty fields (incl lookups):

I often use ā€˜flagsā€™ like focus/like that I want to surface at the top in all listings and select dialogs. Because empty fields are by default surfacing at the top of lists (no idea why) the workaround is to use a formula field that assigns a high or low sorting value based on whether a field is empty. For example, you can create a formula field like:

If(IsEmpty([Some Field]), 1, 0)

Then sort the view by this formula field in ascending order. This will place entities with empty values (which return 1) below those with non-empty values (which return 0). You can then apply a secondary sort on the actual field if needed.

14

Thanks. The reason I ask is that it might be hard to define a db default sort option which uses a field which is not present on all dbs.
In other words, making every relation field of a given db default to sorting by creation date might be possible, but hard to envisage how to enforce a default sort for all relation fields based on a custom field, given that the not every related db will have that field :-/
And if youā€™re choosing a custom field for sorting, then itā€™s no more work to choose it per relation (as it works now) than it is to define a ā€˜default sortā€™ - which would need to be per relation.

1 Like
15

You might be interested in voting for this.

1 Like
16

Where a relation has max 10ish options. Acts like a single select.

I want to put it in a logical order. I can sort it in a config screen, and this order will then be reflected in all the drop-downs.

And I vote for it to be default because itā€™s the default for all views right now.

But if we could get default sorting, filtering, and field views per db then it should respect that. I can imagine it could take the values from the table view in the DB config.

Or a new ā€œDatabases settingsā€ page for things like this.

That would be pretty cool, and sounds like it was your original request and I was derailing a bit.

1 Like