Closed ghost closed 5 years ago
Thanks very much for the suggestion and the work you put into this.
We believe that this would be a step backward and the real solution is to fix the search behind the API. Because of that, we've decided to not accept this change.
My concern is this is a case of "We'll eventually get around to the perfect solution", but in practice it will never happen. ("Perfect is the enemy of good".)
If there aren't short term plans to improve the search API, would you be open to accepting this PR and reverting it once the backend is improved?
Having thought about this a bit more, per @MarcusE1W maybe we should add an option for sorting. What do you think?
Description of the Change
This PR reverts https://github.com/atom/settings-view/pull/1042/commits/38b9408d6d569a40879d8c60c426dcea398ad979. It adds reasonable sorting of package search results, instead of relying on the sort order from the cloud search API.
A couple of other items to note:
apm search
. If this PR is accepted, I would be happy to submit the short PR to add these same sorts toapm
.apm
had butsettings-view
did not.After this PR, the search ordering on atom.io's package search will differ that of
settings-view
(and then,apm
). Ideally we would make this change on atom.io, but that backend isn't open source, so we're stuck with this.Given this is a reversion of a previous PR, I feel I should motivate the need. It can be seen in many comments since the original sorting was removed:
One important difference between atom.io and
settings-view
is that the latter doesn't have pagination, so the sort ordering is especially important insettings-view
.Alternate Designs
Benefits
Atom users are more likely to find plugins which have downloads, indicating that they solve a need, are well described, and that previous searchers found them promising.
Possible Drawbacks
Any plugins that don't have downloads will be disfavored.
Applicable Issues
None.
/cc @50Wliu