Default to order search results by '-modified'

Default to order search results by '-modified'

This will make searches better.  Most of the time you want recent results, not oldest ones.

[Isaac, 2012-11-06 07:49:45]

Hi Roger, do you have time for a quick rietveld review?

Cheers!
-Isaac

[Isaac, 2012-11-06 21:28:19]

+M-A

[M-A, 2012-11-06 21:39:42]

https://codereview.appspot.com/6814091/diff/1/codereview/views.py
File codereview/views.py (right):

https://codereview.appspot.com/6814091/diff/1/codereview/views.py#newcode508
codereview/views.py:508: [('-modified', '(default)')]))
The problem is that is requires a key, so it increases the likelihood of the
search failing. That's why I left the default automatic.

Also, if you want to change the default sorting key, you should change the code
around 3648.

Or you could change this field's default value with initial=foo, but I'm not
100% sure about how it works.

[M-A, 2012-11-06 21:39:59]

+ ML

[Isaac, 2012-11-06 21:45:45]

Can I just add a catch all clause on line 3662 that sets sorted_by to
'-modified'?  In what situation are you worried this key won't exist?

Also I think 3653, 3656 and 3659 should be using elif instead of if.

[M-A, 2012-11-06 21:49:24]

On 2012/11/06 21:45:45, Isaac wrote:
> Can I just add a catch all clause on line 3662 that sets sorted_by to
> '-modified'?  In what situation are you worried this key won't exist?

I'm worried the *index* doesn't exist. That's the main problem here.

> Also I think 3653, 3656 and 3659 should be using elif instead of if.

It's a bug that all the modified_ and created_ are ignored if sorted_by is
specified. But not it should not be elif,  you want to keep all the filters
specified.

[Isaac, 2012-11-06 21:54:07]

PTAL

[M-A Ruel, 2012-11-07 01:02:23]

lgtm

[Roger Tawa, 2012-11-07 01:06:13]

https://codereview.appspot.com/6814091/diff/5002/codereview/views.py
File codereview/views.py (right):

https://codereview.appspot.com/6814091/diff/5002/codereview/views.py#newcode3645
codereview/views.py:3645: # Default sort by ascending key to save on indexes.
Does this comment still make sense?

[Isaac, 2012-11-07 01:40:20]

https://codereview.appspot.com/6814091/diff/5002/codereview/views.py
File codereview/views.py (right):

https://codereview.appspot.com/6814091/diff/5002/codereview/views.py#newcode3645
codereview/views.py:3645: # Default sort by ascending key to save on indexes.
On 2012/11/07 01:06:13, rogerta1 wrote:
> Does this comment still make sense?

Good point, fixed in patchset 3

[Roger Tawa, 2012-11-07 13:25:01]

Lgtm
On Nov 6, 2012 8:40 PM, <ilevy@chromium.org> wrote:

>
>
https://codereview.appspot.**com/6814091/diff/5002/**codereview/views.py<http...
> File codereview/views.py (right):
>
> https://codereview.appspot.**com/6814091/diff/5002/**codereview/views.py#*
>
*newcode3645<https://codereview.appspot.com/6814091/diff/5002/codereview/views.py#newcode3645>
> codereview/views.py:3645: # Default sort by ascending key to save on
> indexes.
> On 2012/11/07 01:06:13, rogerta1 wrote:
>
>> Does this comment still make sense?
>>
>
> Good point, fixed in patchset 3
>
>
https://codereview.appspot.**com/6814091/<https://codereview.appspot.com/6814...
>

[Roger Tawa, 2012-11-07 13:31:47]

Lgtm
 On Nov 6, 2012 8:40 PM, <ilevy@chromium.org> wrote:

>
>
https://codereview.appspot.**com/6814091/diff/5002/**codereview/views.py<http...
> File codereview/views.py (right):
>
> https://codereview.appspot.**com/6814091/diff/5002/**codereview/views.py#*
>
*newcode3645<https://codereview.appspot.com/6814091/diff/5002/codereview/views.py#newcode3645>
> codereview/views.py:3645: # Default sort by ascending key to save on
> indexes.
> On 2012/11/07 01:06:13, rogerta1 wrote:
>
>> Does this comment still make sense?
>>
>
> Good point, fixed in patchset 3
>
>
https://codereview.appspot.**com/6814091/<https://codereview.appspot.com/6814...
>

[M-A, 2012-11-08 19:49:56]

Committed, you can close the issue.