First Last Prev Next    No search results available
: Filters sort feature
Bug#: 25737
: quickFilters
: General
Resolution: FIXED
: All
: All
: unspecified
: P3
: enhancement
: ---

  Show dependency tree - Show dependency graph
Reporter: Jacques Le Roux <>
Assigned To: Axel Grude <>

quickFilters 2.7 pre 10 (236.28 KB, application/x-xpinstall)
2014-08-06 12:27, Axel Grude
no flags Details


You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.

Related actions

Description:   Opened: 2014-03-24 21:16
Implement a filters sort feature like suggested at
------- Comment #1 From Axel Grude 2014-07-30 01:59:16 -------
1. The Problem

While I am not 100% against such a feature, we have to be aware that a simple
button [sort all filters by alphabet] would be dangerous, especially for people
with many (100+) filters. It might have to be restrictive or more intelligent.

Example - let's say I have 3 filters which deal with mail from customers, which
are currently in my filters list in this order:

Steel       -     moves mail to Inbox / Customers / Steel
Flintstone  -     moves mail to Inbox / Customers / Flintstones
Customers   -     moves mail to Inbox / Customers 

The main concept here is that obviously the more specific filters have to be
executed first. So in any case mails from the companies Steel and Flintstone
have to be moved into their specific folders first; whatever mails are leftr
over can be move to the common "Customers" folder/. A simple sorting algorithm
would result in this:

1. Flintstone  -     moves mail to Inbox / Customers / Flintstones
2. Customers   -     moves mail to Inbox / Customers 
3. Steel       -     moves mail to Inbox / Customers / Steel

The Filter Steel would likely  not work anymore as "customers" probably would
already have moved the mail to the Customers folder; what we really want it

1. Flintstone  -     moves mail to Inbox / Customers / Flintstones
2. Steel       -     moves mail to Inbox / Customers / Steel
3. Customers   -     moves mail to Inbox / Customers 

the more specific filters (Flintstone, Steel) have to be sorted separately and
the more general filters would have to be placed after. Logic like this is very
difficult to implement. (Categorization / Parent-Child relationships etc.)
------- Comment #2 From Axel Grude 2014-07-30 02:11:58 -------
2. A Suggestion

(I have broken the comment in 2 pieces to make it easier to parse)

My first thought on this subject is that the user should have to highlight the
specific filters they want to have sorted alphabetically. Here is a
hypothetical list of filters that I might have - I am putting an X before the
filters I might have selected for sorting:

X Friends - Judith
X Friends - Martina
X Friends - Karen
  PC - 2Brightsparcs
X Friends - David
X Friends - Leo
X Friends - Helen
  Studio - Odessia
  Studio - Steinberg
X Friends - Ralf

So my natural objective here would be to want all Filters that match the
pattern "Friends - ..." to be together and sorted alphabetically. My suggestion
would be to have a function "defragment and sort" (working title) which

1. cuts all filters to the clipboard
2. sorts the resulting list
3. inserts filters alphabetically _at the position of the first selected

I think step 3 is especially important as it highlights that we still need to
(manually) control that this list potentially must go *before* or *after* other
less specific filters (such as: before a hypothetical "Other Friends" filter,
or after a "Friends - Karen - Ice hockey" filter)  

This way the mundane task of alpha-sorting can be done by the algorithm but the
"heavy intellectual lifting" of making sure specific filters are not just
simply sorted into a non-functional position is left to the user.

Can we discuss this and maybe have some suggestions on a better name for this
feature? I am setting the status to ASSIGNED and await feedback!
------- Comment #3 From Bodo 2014-07-30 05:43:34 -------
such a kind of sorting will be good. If there are more than 100 filters it is a
problem to see all filters. The problem/risk of inteligent name for a filter is
in my opinion not a problem. The user shoud think, what he is doing and people,
which are using such plug ins knowing the problem. A good discription like the
example will help. 
------- Comment #4 From Axel Grude 2014-08-06 12:27:04 -------
Created an attachment (id=7905) [details]
quickFilters 2.7 pre 10

A test version, only has English and German locale. Don't install in other
languages until I have attached a Babelzilla's version with Strings replaced.
------- Comment #5 From Axel Grude 2016-01-09 09:42:05 -------
Implemented - Version 2.7 - 18/08/2014

First Last Prev Next    No search results available