Adding the ability to sort Date strings #67
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
|
Remind me in a few decades to merge this
|
|
I was able to verify that this fix does in fact enhance #65. The two main datetime cases that we use in our code, are "YYYY-MM-DD hh:mm:ss A" and "YYYY-MM-DD." Both of which were sorting correctly on 25 rows of data per page. Is there any chance we could get the code merged in a few decades early? Does there need to be more changes to the code in order to get this approved? Such as updated documentation that includes verbiage to let the user know it will also sort datetime strings, but it still needs to be declared as a |
|
ok I'll try publish in 6h to make it quicker perhaps
|
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This is probably not the most elegant way of a more generic way to sort, but it should probably do the trick with a minimum amount of changes to your existing code.
Since no tests have been present, I have not added any myself. Therefore, I cannot completely guarantee that this is working 100%. But I think it should.
This should fix #65.