when i click sort by transaction it should show sale invoice in numerical order like 1,2,3,4 but its not sorting properly before this function worked properly but now its not working @lubos 
This is the way Manager’s sort functionality for such a column works. Content in table columns with mixed information is treated as text, not numbers. So “Sales Invoice — 10” comes before “Sales Invoice — 2” because 1 sorts before 2 when doing an alpha-numeric sort. This is the only way it can work. Suppose you are drilling down on an income account from the Summary page. You might have transactions that, in the default date order, show as:
- Sales Invoice — 9
- Credit Note — 4
- Sales Invoice — 35
- Receipt — 3
When doing a forward sort on the Transaction column, you will get:
- Credit Note — 4
- Receipt — 3
- Sales Invoice — 35
- Sales Invoice — 9
You will not get:
- Receipt — 3
- Credit Note — 4
- Sales Invoice — 9
- Sales Invoice — 35
There would be no reason to sort the receipt before the credit note, because their sequence numbers are not related.
You may be remembering an earlier format that did not combine the same information in the table column.
there should be an option to sort by invoice number so the invoices can sorted by numerical order @lubos @Tut
Invoice number is not a column. If you want to look at sales invoices sorted by reference numbers, go to the Sales Invoices tab. Information is presented in different ways in different places.
Probably because it sort them by date and secondly not by number (since you cannot choose the second ordering parameter) but by UUID or creation/update date.
@Davide is correct. You have not said where these screen shots are from, so I do not know what the secondary sort criteria for them are. But Manager makes no distinction between transactions entered for the same date. All are treated as of the end of the day.
i found a solution for this myself …anyway thanks for replying…topic close
@Tut the sort by reference on Production orders doesnt work, is this a bug ?
It works for me, both forward and reverse. Here is the default Production Orders tab list from a test business. The top production order leads the list because it happens to have insufficient quantity:
First click on the # heading:
Second click on the # heading:
Can you illustrate why you think it does not work?
That looks like a perfect alpha-numeric sort to me, exactly as described in my post #2 above. Because the field will accept references that are not purely numerical, it does not sort on a purely numerical basis. This behavior is standard throughout the program.
@Tut may be you didnt notice it
91
90
9
89
number 9 doesnt come before number 90 and after 89
108
109
11
110
number 11 doesnt come after 109 and before 110
Yes, it does, for a reverse alpha-numeric sort. 8 comes before 9. 9 (with no following digit) comes before 90, which comes before 91.
Likewise, for a forward sort, anything beginning with 10… comes before 11, and 11 comes before 110.
For alpha numeric sorts you have to enter numbers with leading zeros
For system generated numbers the system should do numeric not alpa numeric sort
@Tut @Patch my friends
it looks like we are engaging in some sort of debate that has no benefits
in sales quote and sales orders i can sort them
from 1 to 6000 in progressive numbers not in alpha numeric sort you are explaining to me
9=09 and should not be between 89 and 90
this is clearly a bug or at least is not standard and consistent across the program
@lubos please take a look to this
in my opinion reference number sorting must be 1.2.3.4.5…999999
not 1.10.100.1000.11.110 …999999
1 Like
Possibly. Yet users sometimes switch between numbering scheme. (I have done that myself when automatic sequencing was added.)
I do not intend to debate this. I only explained how the system is working.
Yes, it appears that is so, although in other places, the program behaves as I have described for production orders.
Regardless, this is not a bug. It is a consequence of the current design of various tabs. You might definitely prefer a different design, and a standard design, but that is up to @lubos. My point is that the program is not misbehaving.
Some of this could have been resolved if @lubos had decided to introduce an alpha numeric field that would allow for entry of a pre-fix and a numeric field for the number following the prefix. In the above situation there is indeed not a technical misbehaving of the program but the differences from a user perspective look inconsistent and would benefit from improving such. I wonder if there should not be a category in the Forum that can be used for user-interface alerts in addition to bugs?
Having the ability to specifying the length of the system generated serial number is another solution.
-
Manger system generated serial numbers would have leading zeros so sort in chronological order via an alphanumeric sort
-
user alphanumeric serial numbers would also sort appropriately.
@lubos is there a chance that you fix this sort functionality in the production orders and make it consistent in all the tabs ?