sorting by [range]

[buseca]

current sorting by range results in unexpected things, for example if I use a descending order, the 2-3 range comes before the 1-5.

I think we should consider this logic instead:

• If the users select ASCENDING, it means they are interested in seeing lower ranges first. Hence we should take the low limit of the range and sort by it.
• If the they select DESCENDING, they are interested in the higher ranges. Hence we should sort considering the high limit of the ranges.

[buseca]

@dbertella what you think?

[dbertella]

Yeah I see it's a bit of a pain. I don't get your logic though. Are you saying that if I have 1-5 and I sort by ascending order we should use 1 or 5?
I think you should take 1 for ascending and 5 for descending. But yeah let me check the current logic and I can fix it

[buseca]

Right, I mistaken the description.
Ascending --> low limit range
Descending --> upper limit range