Summary: | Item search: Call Numbers in Item search results are ordered alphabetically | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | Koha | Reporter: | Theodoros Theodoropoulos <theod> |
Component: | Searching | Assignee: | Bugs List <koha-bugs> |
Status: | NEW --- | QA Contact: | Testopia <testopia> |
Severity: | normal | ||
Priority: | P5 - low | CC: | bugzilla, ctodd, heather_hernandez, indradg, jhannert, jschmidt, katrin.fischer, nick, oleonard, tmisilo, tomascohen |
Version: | Main | ||
Hardware: | All | ||
OS: | All | ||
Change sponsored?: | --- | Patch complexity: | --- |
Documentation contact: | Documentation submission: | ||
Text to go in the release notes: | Version(s) released in: |
Description
Theodoros Theodoropoulos
2015-09-28 09:33:38 UTC
There is actually a "sorting form" of the callnumber in cn_sort that is created by using the callnumber and the classification source. It might help to have this added to the table as a hidden field used for sorting, while displaying the callnumber. The item search table is rendered server-side, so all sorting happens server-side. This eliminates some of our standard sorting methods, like embedding a sortable string in a title tag. Renaming the column "cn_sort" has the right effect for the purposes of sorting: The column name "cn_sort" is passed to the query and the rows are sorted correctly by call number. Unfortunately this breaks the column filter: "cn_sort" is an ambiguous column name for the purposes of the query because of biblioitems.cn_sort. I'm not sure if there is a good way to handle this besides adding some conditional code specific to these columns. Suggestions welcome! We are using the cn_sort workaround for running item reports to sort by call number, but we've been unable to find a solution that will work within the Item Search. It's too bad, because Item Search could be a really useful tool for title-by-title type work (like weeding or shelf-reading.) We're on 21.05, and the item search is the *only* place where Library of Congress call numbers are sorting correctly. I'm a little confused about your example, too--are the call numbers in your example Library of Congress call numbers, or call numbers in a different classification system? Library of Congress call numbers' initial alpha-numeric sequence are decimals after the period, so there wouldn't be a call number, "QA76.760" because this is the same as "QA76.76"--Library of Congress call numbers never end with a zero after the decimal. If it were a call number used locally, this sorting is correct: > Call Numbers in Item search results seem to be sorted ALPHABETICALLY, so > currently it is displayed: > QA76.76 > QA76.760 > QA76.77 The filing rule for this, if I remember correctly, is covered in the Library of Congress Filing Rules, illustrated by this example, where the absence of a character comes before the presence of a character--that is, "nothing comes before something:" A is for anatomy A4D desert speed run So this isn't correct, for Library of Congress call numbers: > where the results should be shown in the following order: > QA76.76 > QA76.77 > QA76.760 Because "point seven six zero" is less than "point seven seven." But if these aren't Library of Congress call numbers, then the sorting would be different? The LC Filing Rules say, "Arrange numerals after a decimal point digit by digit, one place at a time." So, also, ".760" can't come after ".77," if you're arranging digit-by-digit, one place at a time. (This is in section 14 of https://www.loc.gov/catdir/cpso/G100.pdf ) (In reply to Owen Leonard from comment #2) > The item search table is rendered server-side, so all sorting happens > server-side. This eliminates some of our standard sorting methods, like > embedding a sortable string in a title tag. > > Renaming the column "cn_sort" has the right effect for the purposes of > sorting: The column name "cn_sort" is passed to the query and the rows are > sorted correctly by call number. > > Unfortunately this breaks the column filter: "cn_sort" is an ambiguous > column name for the purposes of the query because of biblioitems.cn_sort. > I'm not sure if there is a good way to handle this besides adding some > conditional code specific to these columns. > > Suggestions welcome! Hi Owen, does that mean we should expect similar issues for date sorting for server side rendered tables? Or is it something specific to how this table was implemented? |