Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Consider sorting utterances/comments newest to oldest #375

Open
k-dominik opened this issue Feb 29, 2024 · 3 comments
Open

Consider sorting utterances/comments newest to oldest #375

k-dominik opened this issue Feb 29, 2024 · 3 comments
Labels
enhancement New feature or request

Comments

@k-dominik
Copy link
Member

Comments for models go from oldest to newest. Usually the story is: hey something is off with the model ... scroll scroll... fixed. Which might be a bit of a waste of time to read through. Also at first glance it will seem that many models are broken, given the oldest comment.

The severity of this is probably pretty low - only users logged into this utterances thing see comments at all.

@k-dominik k-dominik added the enhancement New feature or request label Feb 29, 2024
@jmetz
Copy link
Collaborator

jmetz commented Feb 29, 2024

I think the order is correct, basing this on almost all chat-type systems I can think of including messages here in github issues.

I would instead suggest perhaps either auto-scrolling to the latest message (like many chat interfaces), or having a "scroll to latest" button.

@oeway
Copy link
Collaborator

oeway commented Feb 29, 2024

I am thinking maybe we should wait for the new chat feature with the s3 upload workflow? @jmetz We can think about this when we have the json file for each model. What do you think?

@jmetz
Copy link
Collaborator

jmetz commented Feb 29, 2024

Yep I agree - and for first release, probably a "scroll up latest message" works well

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
enhancement New feature or request
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants