Same date transactions not sorting by reference in multiple pages

for same date transaction, sorting is not happening according to reference in accounts receivable & payable. Here is an example:

1 Like

You are correct. Default sorting algorithms are different for every functional tab and drill-down. You are showing a drill-down for a particular customer under Accounts receivable. The sorting algorithm does not include reference numbers.

same is happening with statements as well. below is example of customer aged receivable. this is creating lots of confusion because of random order of transactions with same date

The explanation is the same. In the case of an unpaid invoices statement, the sort is by days overdue, with no further criteria.

@lubos please consider adding reference number as second sorting criteria for these tabs, drill-down & statement s as well

@romangarg, the result of your suggestion might not be what you expect. Even if it were for you, it might not be for others. Remember that references need not be automatically sequenced numbers. Many users include alpha characters in manually entered references. Some users might want those characters considered in alphanumeric sorts. Others might want alpha characters ignored and only numerals considered. And not everyone enters accounting transactions is strict chronological order or in timely fashion. Those things can influence results of sorting, as can editing of transactions after they are entered. My point is that no sorting scheme will satisfy everyone.

The developer designs sort algorithms after consideration of context. The unpaid invoices sort, for example, places emphasis on status of unpaid invoices, particularly which are longest overdue. The Accounts receivable drill-down algorithm emphasizes daily balances, because Manager does not record time of entry. In other words, it is a daily accounting system. Intermediate drill-downs might sort by customer or supplier name. Sometimes, algorithms include criteria that are not at all obvious to users.

If you search the forum, you will discover that other users have requested many different sort orders for different screens over the years. Ultimately, the developer chooses according to perceived utility. Rarely have the algorithms changed. The particular behaviors you point out have been present for years.

I think whatever the format of reference whether numeric or alphanumeric, majority of the time it will contain some numerical value which most probably will ascend with every new form/invoice saved. So I think adding reference as additional sorting criteria after whatever the default sorting criteria is will make sense in most cases. Especially when date is same , numerical value in reference can always be considered for further sorting transaction name/ reference in my opinion. Hope this will be implemented soon as I am sure transactions not arranged in correct order makes this otherwise great software look unprofessional

Frankly, I am surprised that you are so adamant. If I understand correctly, you base your opinion on what you consider to be an incorrectly sorted transaction overview. Are you really of the opinion that you work with software that has an unprofessional look only because of what you consider to be an incorrectly sorted transaction overview? I am convinced that many people are grateful to @Lubos for providing, also free of charge, administrative software that can meet so many requirements that it can be used in many countries in the world. That is a real achievement.


I am sorry, but your assumption is not correct.

I think this feature request is valid. Moved to ideas.