View Index order

[SaiChaitanya13]

The current index of the transactions on view is based on when you add in the transactions. I feel that it might be better to be based on the date of the transaction and ascending downwards so that it is more intuitive when we look at it.

[nus-se-script]

Team's Response

You used view -sort to achieve this table. If you wanted to view in order of date, you can just use view, view -all, or view [TIMESPAN].

If the issue is regarding why the index of the transactions are not reassigned so that they are sorted by date:

This implementation is useful for newer users. For example, if they know they have only made 2 entries, they will intuitively do delete 2 to remove the 2nd entry. If we reorder the transactions such that index is ordered by date, they may accidentally delete the wrong transaction instead.

Furthermore, if we reassign index by date on every entry, it will cause significant amounts of lag if they have a large number of transactions. Hence, this implementation ensures speed and responsiveness, while maintaining usability.

The index only serves a purpose to identify transactions. There is no best way to sort indices as some user may prefer them to be sorted by date, while others prefer it to be sorted by description.

The 'Original' Bug

[The team marked this bug as a duplicate of the following bug]

Index of Inflows and Outflows of Financial Report Not Sorted in Ascending Order According to Date

When viewing the financial report using view command, the index of inflows and outflows are jumbled and not sorted in ascending order according to date. This could potentially bring some form of inconveniences to the user as it could confuse them.

---

_{[original: nus-cs2113-AY2223S2/pe-interim#1227] [original labels: severity.Low type.FeatureFlaw]}

Their Response to the 'Original' Bug

[This is the team's response to the above 'original' bug]

view should have sorted in order according to date. For transactions with the same date, they will be sorted according to order of index. This can be seen in the image below during our own testing

The index only serves a purpose to identify transactions. There is no best way to sort indices as some user may prefer them to be sorted by date, while others prefer it to be sorted by description.

This implementation is useful for newer users. For example, if they know they have only made 2 entries, they will intuitively do delete 2 to remove the 2nd entry. If we reorder the transactions such that index is ordered by date, they may accidentally delete the wrong transaction instead.

Furthermore, if we reassign index by date on every entry, it will cause significant amounts of lag if they have a large number of transactions. Hence, this implementation ensures speed and responsiveness, while maintaining usability.

Items for the Tester to Verify

❓ Issue duplicate status

Team chose to mark this issue as a duplicate of another issue (as explained in the Team's response above)

• I disagree

Reason for disagreement: [replace this with your explanation]

---

❓ Issue response

Team chose [response.Rejected]

• I disagree

Reason for disagreement: [replace this with your explanation]

---