[425] Listview column arrows for Date are reversed

[TheDude]

Listview column arrows for Date are reversed - the arrows should point towards numerically smaller dates, they do the opposite.

[Ultima]

Yeah it doesn't only occur on the Date, but also other columns, like the % column in the Peers tab (never noticed it before, but just wanted to point out that the Date column isn't the only one affected):

[TheDude]

Problem still exists in 426

[Ultima]

What I found to be incorrect... I might have missed some, but I don't know because the data was probably the same for every item in the list, or the data was abstract (graphical bar in Pieces tab), so I can't tell what's ascending and what's descending.

[Torrent List]

#

Status (unless Downloading is considered "bigger" or "greater" than Paused or whatever)

ETA (unless less time is getting higher sort priority than more time)

Added On (as reported above)

[Peers]

IP (italicized because I'm not sure if it's intentionally being sorted as a string rather than numerically)

Client

%

Reqs

Waited

[Pieces]

#

Completed

[Files]

Name

[Firon]

Arrows have been removed in the next beta.

[1c3d0g]

Aww...the arrows are going to be removed?

[Firon]

They have been removed, yes.

[Badsecurityforum]

I think it is good to remove them. I noticed that they overwrite the column label if the column is too small for label and arrow.

[1c3d0g]

You could always resize the columns...anyway, no need to keep bringing this issue up as they're going to be removed regardless. :|

[chaosblade]

Aww :\

[robochief]

Arrows still appear, and still reversed.

[Irfy]

I tried to be detailed on this and analyzed almost all possible columns (excluding those where I had no sample info). I'd post some screenshots backing my analysis, but the forum doesn't let me or doesn't have the feature

Some columns are sorted the way one would expect them to be, others are sorted in reverse, some are sorted according to another column in the same view, and yet some others cannot be sorted, i.e. they exhibit some possibly arbitrary fixed order regardless of the orientation of the arrow (clicking again on them does not reverse the list). The fact that the area on a column header belonging to the arrow is unnecessarily wide and tends to cover too much text in the header is yet another issue.

In my world, an arrow pointing upwards means a smaller number is always upwards of a bigger number, characters are (case insensitively) sorted so that earlier characters in the alphabet come upwards of those that are later in the alphabet, earlier dates are upwards of later dates, bars with a smaller filled bar come upwards of those who are filled more, IP addresses should be sorted as a large string padded to match 000.000.000.000 (or sorted as a byte[4] array, yielding the identical effect in a more efficient way), so that 2.0.0.0 comes upwards of 10.0.0.0 but also that 0.2.0.0 comes upwards of 0.10.0.0. If a column (such as Debug or Reqs) is deemed unsortable (by the developer), they should not be clickable, and the arrow should never appear on them (clicking on them should have neither a functional effect, nor a visual one like the current appearance of the arrow and the toggle of its direction)

To make the long story short here are my results on sorting in uTorrent 1.6 build 474:

Main window:

Name - reverse

# - reverse

Size - correct

Completed - correct

Downloaded - correct

Remaining - correct

Done - correct

Status - reverse? (not enough data, maybe sorted against an internal enum value, sorting against the string, as imposed by the language might be better, but not critical)

Seeds - correct? (against the value in parantheses)

Peers - correct? (against the value in parantheses)

Down speed - correct

Up speed - correct

Uploaded - correct

Ratio - correct

Avail. - correct

Label - correct

Added On - reverse

Completed on - ? (no data)

Tracker - correct

Max Up - ? (no data)

Max Down - ? (no data)

Bw.Alloc - reverse (if sorting against the weight of the allocation is considered)

Tracker Status - ? (no data)

Debug - inconsistent: unsortable

ETA - reverse

Peers:

% - reverse

Flags - reverse

Client - reverse by IP (if resolving activated, it is still sorted reversely by the IP, but it should be sorted by resolved name imho)

Down speed - correct

Up speed - correct

Reqs - inconsistent: unsortable? (not enough data, appears to be arbitrarily sorted, the screenshot shows "empty" Req data on both sides of 1|0 which is plain inconsistent imho)

Uploaded - correct

Downloaded - correct

Peer dl. - correct

Port - reverse

Relevance - correct

Waited - reverse (with empty space on the wrong side, imho, empty should generally be considered as zero or less than any ASCII character)

Hasherr - inconsistent: unsortable? (not enough data, "empty" Hasherr on both sides of 1s hence inconsistent)

MaxUp - correct

MacDown - correct

Client - reverse (with utorrent on the wrong side according to the native sorting in MS Windows' Start Menu, where the micro symbol is used instead of the ASCII u)

Queued - correct

Inactive - correct

Debug - inconsistent: unsortable

Pieces:

# - reverse

Size - ? (not enough data)

Blocks - inconsistent: sorted against # (should be sorted rather against the Completed column)

Completed - reverse

Availability - reverse

Mode - correct? (not enough data, may be sorted against an internal enum)

Files:

Name - reverse

Size - correct

Done - correct

% - correct

First piece - reverse

# pieces - correct

Pieces - inconsistent: sorted against Name (should be sorter rather against %)

Priority - correct (if sorting against the weight of the priorities is considered)

Mode - correct? (may be sorted against an internal enum)

Summary: a trend can be detected with regard to some kinds of values:

Names are generally reverse-sorted.

Quantities and speeds are generally proper-sorted.

Dates (one instance) seem to be reverse-sorted.

Plain numbers are generally reverse-sorted (#, availability, completed, IP, port, first piece, ..., but not # pieces)

% is inconsistent between peers and files

high-normal-low is inconsistent between priority and bandwidth allocation

All in all, I believe the changes required to correct this behavior are generally trivial, and in most cases, in the order of magnitude of changing a < to a >, or adding a ! to a boolean expression (assuming code of high quality and with good factorization). I'd actually be glad to have this repaired by myself, it's a pity that the code is not open source

And could someone confirm to me whether I'm posting the right thing at the right place in this forum, it's my first post, thanks. I'd expect some kind of bug management system for such things, but couldn't find any (like trac, bugzilla, jira, etc).

[Ultima]

There used to be a bug management system, but ludde didn't exactly enjoy working with it. Instead, he just gets fed bug reports by the people closer to him, or he just scans the forums himself

Indeed, I'm not sure why something trivial like this hasn't been changed after so long, and though it's just a minor detail, it's fixing details like this that add polish to an already-awesome program...

[Irfy]

Ah... Actually I know that feeling myself from a project which has to do with 1000+ freshmen students each year... It'd be a horror to let them all file bug reports or feature requests ;-)

Anyway, I will consider this a positive answer to my last question and await a possible change here.