From: Andrew T. (nilspace) <nil...@us...> - 2005-12-12 16:04:23
|
Ok - I've noticed this over the past couple of days - but only verified it this morning. When I'm reading feeds, I"ll choose "flag all up to this item". If I click on, say, the fourth feed, and then click "mark as read", I notice that what was supposed to be the next newest item is still down on the list (originally I thought it marked it as read), and items that were lower (or not there?) are now at the top, chronilogically. Perhaps this is something to do with the timestamp for ordering? I'm still investigating, but I wanted to put it out there for you devs to also keep an eye out for. Before you click "Mark as Read" on a number of flagged entries, see what the next item (that is unflagged) is and see if it's at the top of your items when you click "Read". Andy -- Andrew Turner ajt...@hi... 42.4266N x 83.4931W http://highearthorbit.com Northville, Michigan, USA |
From: Kevin <ke...@dr...> - 2005-12-12 17:43:15
|
> Ok - I've noticed this over the past couple of days - but only > verified it this morning. > > When I'm reading feeds, I"ll choose "flag all up to this item". If I > click on, say, the fourth feed, and then click "mark as read", I > notice that what was supposed to be the next newest item is still down > on the list (originally I thought it marked it as read), and items > that were lower (or not there?) are now at the top, chronilogically. > > Perhaps this is something to do with the timestamp for ordering? I'm > still investigating, but I wanted to put it out there for you devs to > also keep an eye out for. Before you click "Mark as Read" on a number > of flagged entries, see what the next item (that is unflagged) is and > see if it's at the top of your items when you click "Read". > For identical values in the sort column (currently dcdate), it is not guaranteed the item order will be consistent. I see this often for feeds which don't include a pubDate or dcdate. The fallback is to use the cache timestamp. We could change this behavior easily by using SQL and specifying 2 sort columns. "SELECT ... ORDER BY dcdate, id" --=20 Kevin |
From: Andrew T. (nilspace) <nil...@us...> - 2005-12-12 18:10:16
|
Ok, that's what I had thought may have been happening (sem-random sort order). I don't know if the order *needs* to be exactly correct when the dcdate or timestamp are the same, but at least keeping the feed order consistent is a must. This change should be made and will be put in the 0.2 Release Candidate. Thanks for your help Andy On 12/12/05, Kevin <ke...@dr...> wrote: > > > Ok - I've noticed this over the past couple of days - but only > > verified it this morning. > > > > When I'm reading feeds, I"ll choose "flag all up to this item". If I > > click on, say, the fourth feed, and then click "mark as read", I > > notice that what was supposed to be the next newest item is still down > > on the list (originally I thought it marked it as read), and items > > that were lower (or not there?) are now at the top, chronilogically. > > > > Perhaps this is something to do with the timestamp for ordering? I'm > > still investigating, but I wanted to put it out there for you devs to > > also keep an eye out for. Before you click "Mark as Read" on a number > > of flagged entries, see what the next item (that is unflagged) is and > > see if it's at the top of your items when you click "Read". > > > > For identical values in the sort column (currently dcdate), it is not > guaranteed the item order will be consistent. > > I see this often for feeds which don't include a pubDate or dcdate. The > fallback is to use the cache timestamp. > > We could change this behavior easily by using SQL and specifying 2 sort > columns. > > "SELECT ... ORDER BY dcdate, id" > > -- > Kevin > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Do you grep through log fi= les > for problems? Stop! Download the new AJAX search engine that makes > searching your log files as easy as surfing the web. DOWNLOAD SPLUNK! > http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_idv37&alloc_id=16865&opclick > _______________________________________________ > Fofredux-devel mailing list > Fof...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fofredux-devel > -- Andrew Turner ajt...@hi... 42.4266N x 83.4931W http://highearthorbit.com Northville, Michigan, USA |
From: Kevin <ke...@dr...> - 2005-12-12 18:27:28
|
> Ok, that's what I had thought may have been happening (sem-random sort > order). I don't know if the order *needs* to be exactly correct when > the dcdate or timestamp are the same, but at least keeping the feed > order consistent is a must. > > This change should be made and will be put in the 0.2 Release Candidate= . > Thanks for your help > Andy Glad to hear it. I always thought it was strange FoF didn't use the DB for sorting the lists of feeds/items. --=20 Kevin |