? Success

User tests: Successful: Unsuccessful:

avatar rdeutz
rdeutz
13 Aug 2016

PR for issue #11103

Summery of Changes

The PLT decided to revert #8576 because it is a B/C break

Testing instructions

  • Apply patch
  • You need a category view with articles
  • Set the the secondary ordering in Articles options to „Ordering“
  • Set the the secondary ordering for the menu to „Use Global“
  • Create a new Article

Expected result

The new Article should be listed first in the frontend category view

Votes

# of Users Experiencing Issue
1/1
Average Importance Score
4.00

avatar joomla-cms-bot joomla-cms-bot - change - 13 Aug 2016
Category Administration Components
avatar rdeutz rdeutz - open - 13 Aug 2016
avatar rdeutz rdeutz - change - 13 Aug 2016
Status New Pending
avatar joomla-cms-bot joomla-cms-bot - change - 13 Aug 2016
Labels Added: ?
avatar alikon alikon - test_item - 13 Aug 2016 - Tested successfully
avatar alikon
alikon - comment - 13 Aug 2016

I have tested this item successfully on ca43296

despite the loss of perfomance ;)


This comment was created with the J!Tracker Application at issues.joomla.org/joomla-cms/11581.

avatar ggppdk
ggppdk - comment - 13 Aug 2016

The Joomla release that will have this revert,

  • should also include (if possible) a JTable::reorder performance fix

#11184

avatar alikon
alikon - comment - 13 Aug 2016

@ggppdk i'll look at #11184 more deep after the end of GSoC....
but reordering all artcicle after adding a new article is not performant by design

avatar Sieger66 Sieger66 - test_item - 13 Aug 2016 - Tested successfully
avatar Sieger66
Sieger66 - comment - 13 Aug 2016

I have tested this item successfully on ca43296

also testet with Isis and Hathor Administrator-Template and Sticky-Ordering(negative Ordering Numbers).


This comment was created with the J!Tracker Application at issues.joomla.org/joomla-cms/11581.

avatar zero-24 zero-24 - change - 13 Aug 2016
Status Pending Ready to Commit
avatar zero-24
zero-24 - comment - 13 Aug 2016

RTC. Thanks


This comment was created with the J!Tracker Application at issues.joomla.org/joomla-cms/11581.

avatar jeckodevelopment jeckodevelopment - test_item - 13 Aug 2016 - Tested successfully
avatar jeckodevelopment
jeckodevelopment - comment - 13 Aug 2016

I have tested this item successfully on ca43296


This comment was created with the J!Tracker Application at issues.joomla.org/joomla-cms/11581.

avatar wilsonge wilsonge - change - 13 Aug 2016
Status Ready to Commit Fixed in Code Base
Closed_Date 0000-00-00 00:00:00 2016-08-13 17:40:39
Closed_By wilsonge
avatar wilsonge wilsonge - close - 13 Aug 2016
avatar wilsonge wilsonge - merge - 13 Aug 2016
avatar joomla-cms-bot joomla-cms-bot - close - 13 Aug 2016
avatar joomla-cms-bot joomla-cms-bot - change - 13 Aug 2016
Labels Removed: ?
avatar VasyaV01
VasyaV01 - comment - 16 Aug 2016

I have tested successfully.

avatar tgv604
tgv604 - comment - 6 Sep 2016

Tested successfully;

For the sake of performance I'd suggest shifting the ordering field instead of reordering:
UPDATE #__content SET ordering = ordering + 1 [WHERE catid = N]

Basically, the same outcome in one query instead of many.

avatar ggppdk
ggppdk - comment - 6 Sep 2016

That can be an enhancement, have thought of it, but after executing

UPDATE #__content SET ordering = ordering + 1 [WHERE catid = N]

you still need to check for unique ordering, as existing orderings (for the given category) are not guaranteed to be unique

avatar tgv604
tgv604 - comment - 7 Sep 2016

Well, here's the proper renumbering then:

UPDATE #__content AS c,
    (SELECT @rownum := @rownum + 1 AS rownum, p.id
    FROM #__content AS p, (SELECT @rownum := 0) AS r
    [WHERE p.catid = N]
    ORDER BY p.ordering ASC) AS g 
SET c.ordering = g.rownum
WHERE c.id = g.id
avatar ggppdk
ggppdk - comment - 7 Sep 2016

Similar has been proposed already, it does not work on ALL DBs, (only MySQL ?)
and there was an argument not to use DB specific code

avatar ggppdk
ggppdk - comment - 7 Sep 2016

Here it is:
#8563

avatar tgv604
tgv604 - comment - 7 Sep 2016

Whatever, I'm implementing this for myself.

avatar ggppdk
ggppdk - comment - 7 Sep 2016

@tgv604

Personally,
I am in favour of accepting the MySQL specific optimizations !

I think both #8563 and #11184 should be accepted

avatar jeckodevelopment
jeckodevelopment - comment - 7 Sep 2016

@tgv604 and @ggppdk
this PR has been already merged, if you have further ideas about optimisation, you should open a new PR.

avatar mbabker
mbabker - comment - 7 Sep 2016

As long as Joomla claims to support multiple database engines, accepting patches which penalize users of a certain platform with slower performance should not be acceptable. That's why I argue against switch conditionals for different queries based on the engine. Some exceptions apply, and those are pretty much all already in the code base (like the driver specific subclasses for the Smart Search indexer).

avatar ronaldhoek
ronaldhoek - comment - 3 Oct 2016

Tested this fix with latest official release 3.6.2 and the order of newly created articles is correct again.
Don't see any perfomanc issues for myself.

avatar matrix630307
matrix630307 - comment - 5 Oct 2016

Tested with 3.6.2 and work's fine.

avatar matrix630307
matrix630307 - comment - 5 Oct 2016

i hope, this change will come in short time. it is very strange with our clients for this problem!

avatar wilsonge
wilsonge - comment - 5 Oct 2016

This has already been merged and as you know we have the 3.6.3 release candidate out now. So this will come out next Tuesday

avatar matrix630307
matrix630307 - comment - 5 Oct 2016

thank you - yes, i have see the message from flow... happy!

Add a Comment

Login with GitHub to post a comment