Fix backlink sort order #2
Open
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_STRING` does not work if backlinks roll over, e.g. it will produce ">>100, >>90" instead of ">>90, >>100". `SORT_NATURAL` will handle this correctly, as well as backlinks with subnums.
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Currently, backlinks are sorted using
ksort'sSORT_STRING. This results in incorrect sorting if backlinks happen to roll over:Backlinks
10235through19422should all go after9774, butSORT_STRINGputs numbers starting in1ahead of those starting in9. UsingSORT_NATURALfixes this, while also handling subnums (i.e. backlinks like>>100,3will sort correctly).