Record Numbering

[polanskiman]

joebordes Wrote:Send me access information if you can, it isn't that hard, I'll fix it for you...

Thanks but this is a corporate database and contains proprietery information. Anyways since it is not a production database yet I simply trashed it and re-copied from the original vtiger one. Thinking it twice I think I wont be changing the record numbering as I am doubful that the numbering scheme will be mantained once I add a new record.

[joebordes]

Ok.

Just in case, we are a company that has been in bussines for over 16 years, we have NDAs and contracts. In fact it is the day to day life of a computer technician, we need access to your data to be able to reproduce and fix things, we (usually) do not care at all for the information in itself, we just want to see the effects... <!-- s --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_e_smile.gif" alt="" title="Smile" /><!-- s -->

[polanskiman]

joebordes Wrote:Ok.

Just in case, we are a company that has been in bussines for over 16 years, we have NDAs and contracts. In fact it is the day to day life of a computer technician, we need access to your data to be able to reproduce and fix things, we (usually) do not care at all for the information in itself, we just want to see the effects... <!-- s --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_e_smile.gif" alt="" title="Smile" /><!-- s -->

Yes but since we don't have an NDA signed so far and in view of the fact that it is not a critical issue since it's is not a production database + it goes faster if I trash and restart, I chose the fastest option. I will however consider the above next time. For now, I am back on track. Thank you. <!-- s --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_e_smile.gif" alt="" title="Smile" /><!-- s -->

[polanskiman]

I am coming back on this issue as I am now seing situations where I would need to order that colum properly. I find the Contact Module Numbering mechanism poorly implemented if, as you said, it uses an alphanumeric protocol to sort. The module entity number customization proposes by default an alpha prefix so (in my logic) I expect the records to be ordered properly if I decide to have them ordered by record ID, which obviously is not the case. If this is possible to correct, I would recommend to have this modified in a future release.

The only way at present to do this in a clean way so that the records ID are properly ordered is simply not to put any prefix, or add x amount of 0s in the Start Sequence field prior the initial number.

[joebordes]

polanskiman Wrote:The only way at present to do this in a clean way so that the records ID are properly ordered is simply not to put any prefix, or add x amount of 0s in the Start Sequence field prior the initial number.

The only way to do it is "adding x amount of 0s", I don't think that ommiting the prefix will help. In any case, I don't see much of an issue about sorting with a given amount of 0x in place, in fact, I personally like it as it gives all records a consistent size.

I understand that you would like to have the records ordered by prefix and then numerically. right?

[polanskiman]

joebordes Wrote:

polanskiman Wrote:The only way at present to do this in a clean way so that the records ID are properly ordered is simply not to put any prefix, or add x amount of 0s in the Start Sequence field prior the initial number.

The only way to do it is "adding x amount of 0s", I don't think that ommiting the prefix will help. In any case, I don't see much of an issue about sorting with a given amount of 0x in place, in fact, I personally like it as it gives all records a consistent size.

I understand that you would like to have the records ordered by prefix and then numerically. right?

No I want records to be ordered by their number. I beleive the prefix is only there for readability reasons but doesn't really serve any other purpose. It doesn't make sence to order by prefix since the prefix is the same for all records within a module

In fact I have noticed that adding x 0s in the Start Sequence field doesn't work if you do an import after. If you add a record manually the squencing works while if you do an import it doesn't and all 0s are suppressed.

Back to square one.

[joebordes]

Ok, I'll see what I can do without breaking backwards compatibility.

As for the import error, we fixed that ages ago but vtiger ignored us.
I just added the fix to coreBOS: <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://corebos.org/development/view.php?id=169">http://corebos.org/development/view.php?id=169</a><!-- m -->

[polanskiman]

joebordes Wrote:Ok, I'll see what I can do without breaking backwards compatibility.

As for the import error, we fixed that ages ago but vtiger ignored us.
I just added the fix to coreBOS: <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://corebos.org/development/view.php?id=169">http://corebos.org/development/view.php?id=169</a><!-- m -->

I see. I will modify that and try again. As long as adding 0s to the Start Sequence works I don't mind for the rest. It just needs to be consistant with what is proposed by the application. That's all.