Re: [Bug?] Filtering on property=-1 and ordering by the same property at the same time

Hi Ralf:

I retract my previous email.

In message <[email protected]>,
Ralf Schlatterbeck writes:
>On Fri, May 14, 2021 at 08:37:01PM -0400, John P. Rouillard wrote:
>> I am not seeing the issue Nagy reports when sorting by a link property
>> with multiple values.
>
>Have you tried with the version before my fixes to the filter
>implementations? It may well be that I've fixed these together with all
>the other changes I made. Although I *think* I didn't change the
>implementation for Link.

I reverted and tried again and was able to see the issue Nagy reported
when sorting.  Then I rolled forward with the same (hand crafted) url
and still saw the issue. I cleared cache, used incognito mode etc.,
and the problem was still there.

>> I used the assignedto property with values -1,1. The index page shows
>> unassigned and admin user tickets. The number matches the sum of what
>> I get with a search for 1 and for -1 separately.
>
>That looks good. We (I :-) probably need to come up with some additional
>tests for this.

I must have botched the URL in my testing and not realized it. In any
case I confirm that searching for -1 in link type fields (assignedto)
with sorting on the same field pretends that -1 is not
specified. Sorting by assignedto with filter:

    assignedto=-1,1,Admin1

behaves as though the filter was:

    assignedto=1,Admin1
 
it's only the search using a negative pseudovalue along with some
other value that is problematic. Filter:

   assignedto=-1,-2

returns no results but I know there are issues without anybody
assigned.

   assignedto=1,-2

acts just like: assignedto=1 regardless of the sort field. This seems
to be a new problem.

Hope this helps figure out what's going on here. Sorry again for the
bad report.

--
				-- rouilj
John Rouillard
===========================================================================
My employers don't acknowledge my existence much less my opinions.