You're on your way to the next level! Join the Kudos program to earn points and save your progress.
Level 1: Seed
25 / 150 points
1 badge earned
Challenges come and go, but your rewards stay with you. Do more to earn more!
What goes around comes around! Share the love by gifting kudos to your peers.
Keep earning points to reach the top of the leaderboard. It resets every quarter so you always have a chance!
Join now to unlock these features and more
I have a Quick Filter with ORDER BY Priority DESC, but backlog & active sprint are still sorted by RANK (and I can still drag to change rank).
Any idea why my sort order is being ignored?
Community moderators have prevented the ability to post new answers.
Because a quick filter is there to hide issues from the board, not change the sort order.
The sort order is set in the board's filter. So there's no way to change the sort order quickly.
Yes, I just worked that out
I've now created two personal boards - one for sorting by priority and another for viewing by rank.
Seems really inefficient. What's really lacking is a treeview setup where you can easily click on column headers to sort by rank, priority, status, owner (or ideally any other field I might choose to have as a column header)
Thanks for your help & quick responses!
I don't think Atlassian are going to do this, because if you sort by something other by ranking, it's impossible to rank issues in a way most people will understand.
I have to chime in. Atlassian gives us many fields but the reality is we move the work i the priority order we need it to be. I need a simple detailed printed report in MY order and it can't do this. I have tried multiple things. Aside from doing alot of extra work to assign priority numbers (which would change regularly) I cannot get this. I can print my screen but there is no way to get a nice formatted detail report.
Um, "give people the option to break things and then complain that stuff doesn't work"? Is that really a good UX?
What is being asked for here is not a "fundamental feature" it. If it were implemented, it would be described as a "bug" or "design flaw" because it stops it all from working.
Implementing something that breaks your system is inarguably poor UX.
That is entirely possible.
My understanding of your point is that it is a poor user experience to not be able to configure a system so that it does not work.