Closed minusf closed 5 years ago
Merging #42 into develop will not change coverage. The diff coverage is
n/a
.
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## develop #42 +/- ##
======================================
Coverage 100% 100%
======================================
Files 9 9
Lines 401 401
======================================
Hits 401 401
Continue to review full report at Codecov.
Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact)
,ø = not affected
,? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update b4d0f6a...f3e7f4e. Read the comment docs.
Merging #42 into develop will not change coverage. The diff coverage is
n/a
.
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## develop #42 +/- ##
======================================
Coverage 100% 100%
======================================
Files 9 9
Lines 401 401
======================================
Hits 401 401
Continue to review full report at Codecov.
Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact)
,ø = not affected
,? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update b4d0f6a...f3e7f4e. Read the comment docs.
You should upgrade the widget class, docs and js library then. But better leave the current behaviour: js sorter is not perfect and may act weird on mixed data. That is why that is an option.
I think you have misread this diff. I did not make sortable = True
by default, and the table stays unsorted; however it will show a table header if list_display
is defined -- regardless if the table is sortable or not.
The way it is now, the only way to show a table header is to set the table to sortable, but I might not want to have a sortable table (maybe i sorted all as i wanted backend side) at all.
shown. one can always unset list_display resulting in no header.
sorting is not on by default i imagine because of the problems with sorting arbitrary data and that is fine. but the table header should not be a dependency of sorting.