Timeline for How to sort /questions/featured by bounty_closes_date
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
5 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 27, 2017 at 23:25 | comment | added | Rapunzel Van Winkle | Well, I agree that a special RSS feed as described in the original question is a low priority. And I agree that fixing the "has_more" issue is a high priority (much higher than providing the back end sorting I wanted). But I don't see sorting featured questions by bounty_close_date as an obscure edge case. They're sorted that way on stackoverflow.com (I assume using an algorithm like you described, though they might use a nonpublic API for all I know). | |
| Apr 27, 2017 at 22:55 | comment | added | Brock Adams |
@RapunzelVanWinkle, yes, the sorting can be done more effectively on the back end, but it's not the purpose of API's to handle every contingency and edge case. Rather they provide a framework for interested 3rd parties to do so. ... The OP's request is not unreasonable; it's just unlikely & low priority. ... The has_more issue is not related; it's a bug that can be worked around and will be fixed some day. I would call it "very high priority", and you can see it's been weeks with no action. ... So it's only prudent to tell the OP he'll have to support this particular "long tail" himself.
|
|
| Apr 27, 2017 at 21:56 | comment | added | Rapunzel Van Winkle | I agree that this is currently the way to sort bounty questions by bounty_closes_date, but the original poster had a good point, in the sense that this sorting could be better done on the back end (as it is for other API queries). And if the multiple queries don't return the "has_more" flag reliably (as we've both seen), the list will stop (start?) somewhere in the middle, which would be unfortunate. | |
| Mar 10, 2017 at 15:17 | vote | accept | kriegaex | ||
| Feb 24, 2017 at 19:36 | history | answered | Brock Adams | CC BY-SA 3.0 |