[#CONF-6559] Sort LDAP groups and users alphabetically on administrative pages

Confluence

Sort LDAP groups and users alphabetically on administrative pages

Created: 11/Jul/06 01:39 AM Updated: 26/May/08 06:19 AM

Component/s:

External User Management, Users & Groups, Web Interface

Affects Version/s:

None

Fix Version/s:

None

Time Tracking:

Not Specified

Issue Links:

Cloners

This issue is derived from:

~~CONF-6521~~ Manage Groups behavior with LDAP

Reference

This issue relates to:

CONF-2191 Group management improvements

~~CONF-4118~~ Sort groups alphabetically on Manage Groups page

This issue is related to:

CONF-9558 Sort groups/users that come back from atlassian-user by name, or provide ability to set "order by" in get/find methods of userAccessor (when using atlassian-user schema)

Participants:	David Peterson, Matt Ryall [Atlassian], Thomas A. La Porte and Tom Davies [Atlassian]
Since last comment:	1 year, 3 weeks, 2 days ago
Support reference count:	3
Labels:

Description

« Hide

I'm not sure whether this is even possible but we should investigate it. If it isn't, close this issue as "Won't Fix".

All

Comments

Work Log

Change History

Sort Order:

[ Permlink | « Hide ]

Tom Davies [Atlassian] added a comment - 10/Oct/06 09:59 PM

This may only be supported on some servers, which can do server side sorts, and there may be better ways to page – the VLV LDAP control

[ Permlink | « Hide ]

Thomas A. La Porte added a comment - 19/Apr/07 04:16 PM

This does not appear to be limited to groups, the "Manage Users" page is unsorted or, rather, the sort order is unspecified.

[ Permlink | « Hide ]

David Peterson added a comment - 16/Aug/07 07:26 PM

Aren't you guys caching this information anyway? Couldn't the cached values be sorted?

[ Permlink | « Hide ]

Matt Ryall [Atlassian] added a comment - 16/Aug/07 07:34 PM

It's cached at the repository level at the moment, not for Confluence as a whole. But yeah, that's a good point. If we're loading all the groups/users and storing them in memory anyway, there's no performance reason not to sort them.

To explain the behaviour at the moment: the results come back as a separate iterators from each repository, and we iterate through them that way regardless of the (transparent) caching layer.

Thomas: the order is currently the order of the results returned by your LDAP server. Not ideal, which is why this issue was raised.