Conversation
…rting, making user selections win
Summary of ChangesHello @mzueva, I'm Gemini Code Assist1! I'm currently reviewing this pull request and will post my feedback shortly. In the meantime, here's a summary to help you and other reviewers quickly get up to speed! This pull request resolves an issue where user-defined table sorting was being incorrectly overridden by default operational sorting. By adjusting the order in which sorting parameters are merged, the system now correctly prioritizes user selections, ensuring a more intuitive and expected user experience for data table interactions. Highlights
Changelog
Activity
Using Gemini Code AssistThe full guide for Gemini Code Assist can be found on our documentation page, here are some quick tips. Invoking Gemini You can request assistance from Gemini at any point by creating a comment using either
Customization To customize Gemini Code Assist for GitHub experience, repository maintainers can create a configuration file and/or provide a custom code review style guide (such as PEP-8 for Python) by creating and adding files to a Limitations & Feedback Gemini Code Assist may make mistakes. Please leave feedback on any instances where its feedback is incorrect or counter productive. You can react with 👍 and 👎 on @gemini-code-assist comments. If you're interested in giving your feedback about your experience with Gemini Code Assist for Github and other Google products, sign up here. You can also get AI-powered code generation, chat, as well as code reviews directly in the IDE at no cost with the Gemini Code Assist IDE Extension. Footnotes
|
🦋 Changeset detectedLatest commit: bf1409b The changes in this PR will be included in the next version bump. This PR includes changesets to release 17 packages
Not sure what this means? Click here to learn what changesets are. Click here if you're a maintainer who wants to add another changeset to this PR |
![gemini-code-assist[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/956858?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Code Review
This pull request correctly fixes an issue where default table sorting options would override user selections. By reversing the merge order of the sorting arrays, user-defined sorting now correctly takes precedence. The change is logical and effectively resolves the bug. For consistency, you may want to consider if a similar change is needed for the filter merging logic, which appears to still prioritize default options over user-set filters, though this is outside the scope of the current changes.
Codecov Report❌ Patch coverage is
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #1438 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 52.78% 52.76% -0.02%
==========================================
Files 239 239
Lines 13472 13472
Branches 2787 2787
==========================================
- Hits 7111 7109 -2
- Misses 5457 5459 +2
Partials 904 904 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. 🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
|
| }); | ||
| const sorting: PTableSorting[] = uniqueBy( | ||
| [...tableStateNormalized.pTableParams.sorting, ...(ops?.sorting ?? [])], | ||
| [...(ops?.sorting ?? []), ...tableStateNormalized.pTableParams.sorting], |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We should fine correct solution for all cases
3 participants
MILAB-5579 Reverse the merge order so user sorting comes after ops.sorting, making user selections win