When you have the "All recipes", "All packages" and "Package groups" tables sorted by the "Included" column and you select / deselect something, the item you have selected / deselected changes position within the table due to the applied sorting. The effect is quite puzzling, since you can no longer see the item you just interacted with (generally it moves below or above the set of rows in view). To provide some feedback as to what's happening, we could try a fading animation when you select / deselect something (as we do when you deselect something from the "Included recipes" and "Included packages" tables). I am not sure how well it'll work, but at least is a relatively straightforward solution we can try.
assigning to Cristiana, since she was responsible for all the sorting-related work.
Hi Belen, As it is implemented the current fadeing animation for "Included recipes/packages", after you deselect something, the table will be sorted by recipe name, so it will lose the sorting column. Should we keep the same behaviour for the others tab? What I mean is that for e.g. in "All recipes" tab is it is sorted by Included, after you deselect an item , it would be selected by Name. From the development point of view, it is easier to keep the same behaviour. Let me know your opinion. Thanks!
(In reply to comment #2) > Hi Belen, > > As it is implemented the current fadeing animation for "Included > recipes/packages", after you deselect something, the table will be sorted by > recipe name, so it will lose the sorting column. You are right: I hadn't notice that. I did see this functionality groups together at the top of the table all recipes / packages that will be removed: I guess it was done to give some visibility of what will be removed. But I don't understand why the sorting has to change after that. Should we keep the same > behaviour for the others tab? What I mean is that for e.g. in "All recipes" > tab is it is sorted by Included, after you deselect an item , it would be > selected by Name. > From the development point of view, it is easier to keep the same behaviour. > Let me know your opinion. I don't think we should. When my table is sorted by other than 'Name', it's because I have expressly changed the sorting criteria. If Hob overrides my wishes every time I change something, I will probably end up quite annoyed with Hob ;) Do you think we can extend the fix to the Included tabs, or should I open a (minor) bug? Thanks!
Hi Belen, My opinion is to implement the fade out mechanism in the same way it is implemented in the other part, and then open a new bug to change its behaviour. Sounds ok for you? Cristiana
(In reply to comment #4) > Hi Belen, > > My opinion is to implement the fade out mechanism in the same way it is > implemented in the other part, and then open a new bug to change its > behaviour. > Sounds ok for you? Sounds perfectly reasonable. Have opened bug 4453 with M3 milestone and assigned to you. Feel free to change milestone / assignee as needed. Cheers Belen > Cristiana
merged to master http://git.yoctoproject.org/cgit/cgit.cgi/poky/commit/?id=da34a8db498a4a332e807f20feee961a99aad004
verified on 676fd3f394a0c0576b63c77ed2184bf5f42c29b6