Bug #1220 - Adding alpha ordering to /items/fields endpoint

[bmyoungquist]

What type of PR is this?

• bug

What this PR does / why we need it:

• fixes issue where custom fields can be difficult to find because they are not ordered

Which issue(s) this PR fixes:

Fixes #1220

Testing

Manually tested by interacting with the custom field filter on the search page

Summary by CodeRabbit

• Bug Fixes
  • Fixed custom field names to appear in consistent alphabetical order.

[coderabbitai]

Walkthrough

The GetAllCustomFieldNames query in the repository layer now enforces ascending alphabetical ordering on custom field names, ensuring consistent and user-friendly display in search dropdown lists.

Changes

Cohort / File(s)	Summary
Query Ordering backend/internal/data/repo/repo_items.go	Added Order(ent.Asc(itemfield.FieldName)) to sort custom field names alphanumerically in ascending order.

Estimated code review effort

🎯 1 (Trivial) | ⏱️ ~3 minutes

Poem

Alphabets dance in perfect line,
Custom fields now sorted fine,
Where chaos once did reign supreme,
Order flows like gentle stream.
A single line, a simple fix,
Makes searching easier—click, click, click! ✨

---

Security Note: No security concerns identified. This change only adds deterministic ordering to field name retrieval with no impact on authorization, data exposure, or input validation.

🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 5

✅ Passed checks (5 passed)

Check name	Status	Explanation
Title check	✅ Passed	The title clearly references the bug number and describes the specific fix: adding alpha ordering to the /items/fields endpoint.
Description check	✅ Passed	The description covers all required sections: PR type (bug), what it does and why, the issue it fixes (#1220), and testing performed.
Linked Issues check	✅ Passed	The code change directly addresses issue #1220 by adding deterministic ascending ordering to custom field names in the GetAllCustomFieldNames query.
Out of Scope Changes check	✅ Passed	The single-line change is tightly scoped to the specific issue: adding Order() clause to sort custom fields alphanumerically with no extraneous modifications.
Docstring Coverage	✅ Passed	No functions found in the changed files to evaluate docstring coverage. Skipping docstring coverage check.

_{✏️ Tip: You can configure your own custom pre-merge checks in the settings.}

✨ Finishing Touches

🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)

• Create PR with unit tests

---

Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out.

❤️ Share

• X
• Mastodon
• Reddit
• LinkedIn

_{Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands and usage tips.}

[coderabbitai]

Caution

Some comments are outside the diff and can’t be posted inline due to platform limitations.

⚠️ Outside diff range comments (1)

backend/internal/data/repo/repo_items.go (1)

1190-1198: ⚠️ Potential issue | 🟠 Major

Field names are sorted, but field values are still unsorted

Line 1196 fixes deterministic ordering for names, but Issue #1220 also asks for the Values dropdown to be alphanumeric. GetAllCustomFieldValues still uses Unique(true) + Select(...) without Order(...), so value order remains nondeterministic.

Suggested follow-up patch

func (e *ItemsRepository) GetAllCustomFieldValues(ctx context.Context, gid uuid.UUID, name string) ([]string, error) {
    type st struct {
        Value string `json:"text_value"`
    }

    var values []st

    err := e.db.Item.Query().
        Where(
            item.HasGroupWith(group.ID(gid)),
        ).
        QueryFields().
        Where(
            itemfield.Name(name),
        ).
        Unique(true).
+       Order(ent.Asc(itemfield.FieldTextValue)).
        Select(itemfield.FieldTextValue).
        Scan(ctx, &values)

Security recommendation: keep the group.ID(gid) tenant predicate in both names and values queries (as currently implemented) to avoid cross-tenant metadata leakage.

🤖 Prompt for AI Agents

Verify each finding against the current code and only fix it if needed.

In `@backend/internal/data/repo/repo_items.go` around lines 1190 - 1198,
GetAllCustomFieldValues currently returns deduplicated values without
deterministic ordering; update the query that builds values to include an Order
clause (e.g., Order(ent.Asc(itemfield.FieldValue))) in the chain that uses
Unique(true) + Select(...) so the Values dropdown is alphanumeric and still
scoped by the tenant predicate (item.HasGroupWith(group.ID(gid))). Locate the
query in GetAllCustomFieldValues that calls
e.db.Item.Query()...QueryFields()...Select(itemfield.FieldValue) and append the
appropriate Order(...) using itemfield.FieldValue.

🤖 Prompt for all review comments with AI agents

Verify each finding against the current code and only fix it if needed.

Outside diff comments:
In `@backend/internal/data/repo/repo_items.go`:
- Around line 1190-1198: GetAllCustomFieldValues currently returns deduplicated
values without deterministic ordering; update the query that builds values to
include an Order clause (e.g., Order(ent.Asc(itemfield.FieldValue))) in the
chain that uses Unique(true) + Select(...) so the Values dropdown is
alphanumeric and still scoped by the tenant predicate
(item.HasGroupWith(group.ID(gid))). Locate the query in GetAllCustomFieldValues
that calls e.db.Item.Query()...QueryFields()...Select(itemfield.FieldValue) and
append the appropriate Order(...) using itemfield.FieldValue.

---

ℹ️ Review info

⚙️ Run configuration

Configuration used: Repository UI

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Pro

Run ID: b7eb8a7a-4426-4678-bc71-e613634c8bc0

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 144920c and bbb36cd.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)

• backend/internal/data/repo/repo_items.go