Qualifier sorting incorrect

[nico.pulver.novartis.com]

Hi Team,
It seems like the qualifier sorting is not correct:

32.00 should come before 33.38 when sorting descending.

[skalkin]

Hi Nico, it’s quite funny, I spent half an hour debugging it and only then I realized that it actually works as expected: 32.00 should come after 33.38 when sorting descending. Values take precedence, and qualifiers are only used for tie-breakers

Qualified numbers

Due to the popular request from our clients in the pharma R&D space, we are introducing a special type of numbers - qualified numbers, or qnum. They are typically used to represent measurements when the exact value is not known, but we know that it is either less or greater than some value. The examples of such values are “<3.5” or “>5E-6”. In Datagrok, it was already possible to represent such values by having two columns (qualifier and value) and customizing the cell renderer to show the qual…

[nico.pulver.novartis.com]

Hi Andrew, here I disagree qualified values should really come at the ends, like:

<0.01
<0.1
0.005
0.02
0.4
4
7
30
50
“>20”
“> 40”
“> 100”

(Had to put the gt into quotes, otherwise the text here is formatted as a block)
There is not so much benefit of showing the qualifiers, if the values are just treated like there is no qualifier.

[skalkin]

I’ll have to disagree with your disagreement I’m quite certain that we have discussed it multiple times (@nik.clare.gmail.com - please chime in) even before we started implementing it, then described the implementation in details (see the linked post), toyed with the outcome in our joint interactive sessions and checked that the sorting also behaves as expected. I believe we also did separately confirm it with @dpetrov.gnf.org and @asantrosyan.gnf.org. This is also the way the sorting for fuzzy numbers was implemented in the platforms that were predecessors to Datagrok.