Hi, there seems to be a bug in the sales section … when I sort by paid/unpaid status it’s not actually sorting it …
sorry, didn’t want to share the whole table publicly but you can see the sorting selected and no other column seems to be selected either :)))
I’m sorry for the confusion here. The buttons are not brilliantly positioned, which I think is what has caused the confusion here. In your screenshot, you’re sorting by “Due date”, not the payment status (the arrows are after the text that they apply to).
It’s possible to click on the text part of the column heading when sorting to make sure the right column is used.
This is a very old page in Breww and most other list-style pages use a slightly different (and better) approach, which we’re gradually rolling out, so these should be improved in a future update when this list is migrated over to the new way that we make lists.
I have a similar question, because ordering by order / invoice number seems not to work as intendet (maybe sorting by an internal number instead?):
Thanks for bringing this up, Kai. You’re right; this is sorting on a different internal number (that will typically result in the correct sorting, but not always).
Unfortunately, this isn’t something we can easily change, and it’s been done deliberately for a very good reason.
Is this a problem for you, or are you ok for it to continue to work as it does currently?
Of course, we can work with the current setup, but it might not be easy to check for gaps in the numbering. Currently, we still need to write some invoices on another platform, so it’s important for us to keep track of the correct numbers. I suggest placing the internal ID (which is unchangeable) in a separate column on the left, labeled ‘ID’, and renaming the current ‘Number’ column to ‘Invoice Number’. This way, we can sort the data both ways. Just a suggestion, though; it’s not a huge priority. The current setup is a bit misleading, in my opinion, and that’s why I wanted to point it out.
I assume they do not want to expose the internal numbers still it is a little strange the sorting cannot be used (comes from a former database designer)