Not all tree siblings are ordered by a position field; tree siblings may also be ordered alphabetically by a name field or something completely different. So therefore I'm not going to merge this. Also, it wouldn't be backwards compatible with existing usage of tree queries.
However, maybe it would be useful to add a OrderedTreeNode abstract model or something, and that one could have a position field by default. Such a change would require some tests and docs though.
I tried to go with what you had in mind. I tried to try without getting too much information, my mistake. But it was really very enjoyable. Thank you 🙏🥰 I'm closing the PR.
Hi
Thanks for your contribution!
Not all tree siblings are ordered by a position field; tree siblings may also be ordered alphabetically by a name field or something completely different. So therefore I'm not going to merge this. Also, it wouldn't be backwards compatible with existing usage of tree queries.
However, maybe it would be useful to add a
OrderedTreeNode
abstract model or something, and that one could have a position field by default. Such a change would require some tests and docs though.