Corrected typo in the title ;)

@brianteeman starting to hate a word :-)

Have you seen this PR ?
#11139

• it fixes B/C break
• it maintains the objective of avoiding JTable::reorder() from being triggered and running on all records

but arguably this PR is independent of #11139

@ggppdk yeah you are right this here has nothing to do with #11139, further more I have my problems to see the what #11139 is trying to achieve

what #11139 is trying to achieve

2 objectives

• fix B/C break and create new articles and featured ordering on top (with smallest ordering)
• avoid JTable::reorder() from running on new article creation

the JTable::reorder() running on new article creation and executing hundrends or thousands or queries and this was the reason to create new article with highest ordering

but the slow new article saving is only 1 of the problems JTable::reorder causes:
see here 1 more here: #4303

@ggppdk thanks for the summery, but I don't think it makes sense to fix a B/C break after a lot of versions. Someone could argue to change it back now is also a B/C break. I will look into the issue at hand

but I don't think it makes sense to fix a B/C break after a lot of versions. Someone could argue to change it back now is also a B/C break

Please forgive me for annoying you, but you are wrong

The B/C break is here and it effects 100% of the records in all web-sites that want to use order by ordering number for listing articles at frontend

• it would have been true if people were slowing trying to change the order of the items (i say slowly because in some cases you have thousands of records) !

but they do not try to make them reverse (instead some try to use creation date, some other suffer dragging from the bottom up through many records)

Why they have not tried to make them reverse ?
Because the B/C break has made the ordering number of new articles be last cannot be used (yet)
because revese ordering in the listing queries does not exist,

• you are trying to add it now

so noone is yet trying to use reverse ordering, they will start after you merge this and after it is released
and then you argument will start to have an effect with time

and lets say that we merge this , and people want to use it, they will have to manually re-order hundrends or thousands of articles and then use it

and lets say that we merge this , and people want to use it, they will have to manually re-order hundrends or thousands of articles and then use it

continuing the above

Lets say that i have 200 records, now order normally,

• now for every new record i (the user) drag it up 200 positions to place it in correct place

Now lets say i want to avoid the above
and take advantage of

• new article having biggest / last order number
• and of the new reverse ordering that you want to add

how am i going to reverse these records ?
i am gone drag and drop 200 records over 200/2 = 100 positions on average ?

what if i have 2000 records ?

and then if you use ordering numbers in more than 1 place,

• you need to do the same for every category that uses it

at minimum we would need a button to make the "Revese all records" task automatic

then we can keep the B/C break

• and we can demand that all users that now make use of ordering numbers ...

to update their site configuration to use the new reverse ordering and reverse all their existing records via the new button

But this affects only new items, if I got it right then the change was that new item got max(ordering) as value and not 0 as it was before, correct me if I am wrong

But this affects only new items, if I got it right then the change was that new item got max(ordering) as value and not 0 as it was before, correct me if I am wrong

correct,

so now sites that continue to use ordering numbers

• will make backend manager pagination e.g. 200 records
• and then drag up the record to the top

and then drag up the record to the top

it is not too much of a problem for sites with e.g. 200 items in featured view, and if you do not create articles often,

so people have adjusted to doing this extra work, it takes less than a minute to do if you have a few hundrend records

this PR is a solution,
but it should also be with a new button to reverse all existing records at once

Let me test the other issue, we are having a discussion at the wrong spot, this PR here is a simple add of an option to the sorting. Tester will run away when they see all the back and force discussion :-)

Joomla 3.6.0 broke B/C for article/featured ordering column.

@rdeutz I also created a similar PR #11134 to yours but without enthusiasm from others then I closed it. To understand #11139 please read the comment from #11103 (comment)

@rdeutz

about benefits of PR #11139
see my comment :
#11139 (comment)

I have tested this item ✅ successfully on

I have tested this item ✅ successfully on 2cd6afb

@rdeutz can you look at the conflicts please?

What's the status here?

I still think this makes sense, will fix the conflicts later

@Quy thanks, fixed