Fix Default Sort Behavior Of Table With Custom Templates #1308
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
* Sort table rows upon changes to column templates * Reduce code duplication by through `sortInternalRows` method
swseverance
force-pushed
the
correct-sort-behavior
branch
from
e8efe8d
to
67a4e8a
Compare
swseverance
changed the title
|
Looks good, thanks! 👍 |
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
What kind of change does this PR introduce? (check one with "x")
What is the current behavior? (You can also link to an open issue here)
There are scenarios for which a table's
_internalColumnsobject appears to be undefined when the initial sorting of the table occurs as a result of component lifecycle events. This can lead to the table not being sorted even whensortsare passed to the table via an input.What is the new behavior?
Table rows are now sorted after changes to columnTemplates
Does this PR introduce a breaking change? (check one with "x")
If this PR contains a breaking change, please describe the impact and migration path for existing applications: ...
Other information: