Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Sort collections by title on repository page #1522

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

taylor-steve
Copy link
Contributor

While looking at sul-dlss/stanford-arclight#429 we have been looking at how the repository page is sorted by default.

What do folks think about sorting that page using the default title sort field? I think it improves that page, but I'd also understand not wanting to tie it to specific configuration.

@taylor-steve taylor-steve marked this pull request as ready for review March 19, 2024 21:34
@marlo-longley
Copy link
Contributor

marlo-longley commented Mar 20, 2024

Thanks for adding this @taylor-steve. My instinct is for any config to take an approach that is configurable for implementers, potentially even per repository.

In our local Stanford instance, we recently added a different way of setting config (See https://github.com/sul-dlss/stanford-arclight/pull/466/files#diff-8d22082941b3ca9f588bb2b795ae8f86f233c0175d799a8703dad41458087832) that provides a settings.yml file. But there is no such place for overall settings in the Arclight Core codebase, which I think makes sense in theory not to impose on implementers.

In Core, we do have the repositories.yml file. That file contains values that are directly displayed such as description etc. I do think a case could be made for reading a sort value in this file, though, since it is display-related if not directly displayed. Maybe we could provide this default as you suggest, but override it if a value is provided per repository, leaving that option for implementers. Just thinking out loud, though...

@taylor-steve
Copy link
Contributor Author

Thanks @marlo-longley. I'm going to close this for now and will re-open with a different PR if we pursue this work further.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants