This is my first post here, but I've been an Opus user for about a year now. It's an amazing file manager, but one thing that irks me is something so basic that I'm sure there must be a config option or something somewhere that solves this issue, but I can't seem to find it.
Question:
How can I get the Dimensions column to sort based on the actual dimensions of the images/videos?
Current behavior:
It sorts on the first number it sees like it has no concept of what dimensions are.
Expected behavior:
It should multiply the width and height values and sort based on the result.
Why is the expected behavior better than the current behavior?
The current behavior is not adding any value to the product. Consider why a person would want to sort on dimensions. I'm trying to get a list of items that are unacceptably small so that I can do something about it. Sure, some users may be interested only in images that are unacceptably short or narrow, however:
The Dimensions column, as currently implemented, only sorts on the image width, not height.
There already exist Height and Width columns for sorting on those values. Therefore, the Dimensions field should do something different, not be arbitrarily redundant.
Considering those points, I either propose this as a bug to be fixed (which is rather hard to believe) or as a setting for which the default behavior should be changed.
Again, thank you guys for all of the hard work you've put in to make DO an awesome product. This report represents a very annoying little issue, but one that should hopefully be very easy to solve one way or another. Thanks for your help and attention.
Functionally, that appears to work well. The only problem that I see with it is the display value, which I believe is being read from 'desc'. That value may have the height and width in it, but it can also have a bunch of other BS in there, such as the URL that the media was downloaded from! I've tried my hand at getting it to display like the built-in dimensions column, but no luck so far.
The default behavior is intentional, but we aren't against adding this as an alternative of some kind. (That said, the built-in ImageBytes column already provides something very similar.)
Do you know the rationale behind it? I'm just curious because I can't think of one. I would expect you to say that it was just using a default sort because no one has cared enough about it to write a custom sorter for it until now. But to say that it's actually intentional piques my curiosity.
) since it does solve the problem.