-
Bug Report
-
Resolution: Fixed
-
L3 - Default
-
None
Reproduced on Camunda 7.12.4
Steps to reproduce
- Login to Cockpit
- Open Historic Process definition view
- Go to "Incidents" tab
Observed behaviour
- By default, incidents are shown as sorted by "Type" column, however in backend incidents are actually sorted by incident ID.
Expected behaviour
- The type column does not indicate that it is sorted
- The selected sorting is correctly stored in the browser's local storage and applied when the page is re-loaded
This is the controller panel for Smart Panels app
[CAM-12058] Incorrect sort order in History->Incidents page
| Link | New: This issue is related to SUPPORT-7966 [ SUPPORT-7966 ] |
| Description |
Original:
Reproduced on Camunda 7.12.4
*Steps to reproduce* * Login to Cockpit * Open Process definition view of History * Go to "Incidents" tab *Observed behaviour* * By default, incidents are shown as sorted by "Type" column, however in backend incidents are actually sorted by incident ID. *Expected behaviour* * By default, incidents should be sorted correctly based on the "Type" column. |
New:
Reproduced on Camunda 7.12.4
*Steps to reproduce* * Login to Cockpit * Open Process definition view of History * Go to "Incidents" tab *Observed behaviour* * By default, incidents are shown as sorted by "Type" column, however in backend incidents are actually sorted by incident ID. *Expected behaviour* * By default, incidents should be sorted correctly based on the "Type" column. *Hints:* As an end-user, the creation time has a perfect and clear meaning and would be an ideal candidate for the default sorting. |
| Mentioned Roles |
| Mentioned Groups |
| Description |
Original:
Reproduced on Camunda 7.12.4
*Steps to reproduce* * Login to Cockpit * Open Process definition view of History * Go to "Incidents" tab *Observed behaviour* * By default, incidents are shown as sorted by "Type" column, however in backend incidents are actually sorted by incident ID. *Expected behaviour* * By default, incidents should be sorted correctly based on the "Type" column. *Hints:* As an end-user, the creation time has a perfect and clear meaning and would be an ideal candidate for the default sorting. |
New:
Reproduced on Camunda 7.12.4
*Steps to reproduce* * Login to Cockpit * Open Historic Process definition view * Go to "Incidents" tab *Observed behaviour* * By default, incidents are shown as sorted by "Type" column, however in backend incidents are actually sorted by incident ID. *Expected behaviour* * By default, incidents should be sorted correctly based on the "Type" column. *Hints:* As an end-user, the creation time has a perfect and clear meaning and would be an ideal candidate for the default sorting. |
| Mentioned Roles |
| Mentioned Groups |
| Description |
Original:
Reproduced on Camunda 7.12.4
*Steps to reproduce* * Login to Cockpit * Open Historic Process definition view * Go to "Incidents" tab *Observed behaviour* * By default, incidents are shown as sorted by "Type" column, however in backend incidents are actually sorted by incident ID. *Expected behaviour* * By default, incidents should be sorted correctly based on the "Type" column. *Hints:* As an end-user, the creation time has a perfect and clear meaning and would be an ideal candidate for the default sorting. |
New:
Reproduced on Camunda 7.12.4
*Steps to reproduce* * Login to Cockpit * Open Historic Process definition view * Go to "Incidents" tab *Observed behaviour* * By default, incidents are shown as sorted by "Type" column, however in backend incidents are actually sorted by incident ID. *Expected behaviour* * The type column does not indicate that it is sorted * The selected sorting is correctly stored in the browser's local storage and applied when the page is re-loaded *Hints:* * As an end-user, the creation time has a perfect and clear meaning and would be an ideal candidate for the default sorting. |
| Mentioned Roles |
| Mentioned Groups |