Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Contacts sort options #26901

Open
sapphirepro opened this issue Oct 6, 2023 · 10 comments
Open

Contacts sort options #26901

sapphirepro opened this issue Oct 6, 2023 · 10 comments

Comments

@sapphirepro
Copy link

Is your feature request related to a problem?

It's hard to review contacts on Telegram, because it's only sorted by last online state. Scrolling them and then suddenly someone coming online messes all up + it's very hard to find specific contacts.

Describe the solution you'd like

Add sort options, please. At minimum required is search by alphabet. A-Z etc, then can scroll all contacts by alphabet ignoring their last online state. It would make it much more convenient.

Thank you a lot in advance!

Describe alternatives you've considered

Add sort options, please. At minimum required is search by alphabet. A-Z etc, then can scroll all contacts by alphabet ignoring their last online state. It would make it much more convenient.

Thank you a lot in advance!

Additional context

We are talking of sidebar menu => Contacts.

@john-preston
Copy link
Member

@sapphirepro There is a button in the top right box corner.

@Aokromes Aokromes closed this as completed Oct 6, 2023
@sapphirepro
Copy link
Author

sapphirepro commented Oct 6, 2023

@sapphirepro There is a button in the top right box corner.

It is NOT working as expected, cause regardless of alphabet it still keeps online/offline as priority. If alphabetical order online/offline status must be fully ignored. So feature is either missing or buggy, depending of what you preffer.

This totally destroys order + let's say I looked 50% of list, then someone comes online and moves to top of list, then offline again etc. Alphabetical order sorting must be 100% static ignoring olline/offline state completely so if person's name starts on "Z" and he is online, he still must be in the end of the list, not allowed to appear on top just because he appeared online

@Aokromes Aokromes reopened this Oct 6, 2023
@sapphirepro
Copy link
Author

Yes. Just checked. It's a bug. In Android app sorts ok. In Linux Desktop app shows first online and few sorted by recent online, then alphabetically, so algorithm is broken or contains bug

@john-preston
Copy link
Member

@sapphirepro I cannot reproduce that :(

@sapphirepro
Copy link
Author

Look. Both sorting modes. Are any of them alphabetical from top to bottom? NO!

Screenshot_20231007_065601-1
Screenshot_20231007_065614

@sapphirepro
Copy link
Author

sapphirepro commented Oct 7, 2023

Look. Both sorting modes. Are any of them alphabetical from top to bottom? NO!

Screenshot_20231007_065601-1 Screenshot_20231007_065614

You really can not see that on first screenshot that should be by Alphabet top rows still count with last online time? Also maybe folders etc count, I don't know, but should be STRICTLY alphabetical ignoring fully online time, premium statuses, folders, pinned contacts whatever else, just strict A-Z

@john-preston
Copy link
Member

It looks like switching didn't work at all 🤔

@john-preston
Copy link
Member

john-preston commented Oct 7, 2023

Maybe that's a locale issue, because for sorting it uses some stripped from diacritics etc strings.

@sapphirepro
Copy link
Author

Maybe that's a locale issue, because for sorting it uses some stripped from diacritics etc strings.

Possible. Worth investigating I guess. In mobile app all works normally as expected

@sapphirepro
Copy link
Author

It looks like switching didn't work at all 🤔

Well, it changes stuff (as you can see lists are not equal), but does it some very weird way

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants