The document groups in the AD dashboard are in random order

[kivinen]

Description

On the page https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/ad/roman.danyliw/ the documents are grouped in to the different groups like I-D Exists Internet-Drafts. Publication Requested Internet-Drafts etc, but the order of those groups are mostly random.

The new ad list page feature tried to sort the groups in some kind of logical order, so I think similar ordering should be used here.

Code of Conduct

• [X] I agree to follow the IETF's Code of Conduct

[rjsparks]

The order isn't at all random. The bs5 layout may make the sections harder to see, but the order is in the natural progression order through the ad processing workflow, with blocking positions pulled to the top at a previous IESGs request.

[kivinen]

Robert Sparks writes:

The order isn't at all random. The bs5 layout may make the sections harder to see, but the order is in the natural progression order through the ad processing workflow, with blocking positions pulled to the top at a previous IESGs request.

I do not think this is correct.

For john.scudder the order is publication requested, AD evaluation, Start chartering / rechartering, IESG Evaluation, Approved-announcement sent, RFC Ed, Dead, RFC, Approved Charters. Note that start chartering / rechartering is in the middle.

For warren.kumari AD Review Conflict Review, Start chartering / rechartering, In Last Call, Waiting for Writeup, Waiting for AD Go-Ahead, Waiting for AD Go-head Status Change, IESG Evaluation, RFC Ed queue, RFC. Note here that Waiting for Write up is after Last Call, I thought it was before last call etc.

I was asking this from Lars and he did not know that there would be any order, the template just does

{% regroup docs by search_heading as grouped_docs %}

and he did not know what order is used in that case.

The issue is that if we put everything on the dashboard in one table, it gets way too wide, so Lars said it should be splitted in the separate tables, i.e., one that has Internet drafts, another for RFCs, and then one for status changes and charters.

Thats why I wanted to have new group type for each group that can I can decide which table that entry belongs. Also the ad_dashboard_group is returning just those items, as it can return for example I-Ds which have any draft-iesg state.

I think similar grouping should be used on the dashboard also, i.e., group charter related things together, status changes together, and Internet-Drafts togehter (RFCs can go to same group), which mean we could use doc.get_state_slug to group them to get this effect.

Blocking positions are calculated separately and thats why they are in compelte separate table having different columns than rest of the tables.

@.***

[rjsparks]

The sort is here: https://github.com/ietf-tools/datatracker/blob/main/ietf/doc/views_search.py#L413