Talk:Cooked Food Index

From Lotro-Wiki.com
Revision as of 08:16, 8 December 2011 by DoIHaveTo (talk | contribs) (→‎Incorrect Sorting Order: new section)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Missing foods?

Found 2 cooked foods missing from the list Item:Traveller's Porridge and Item:Traveller's Bread. any one with more table knowledge that could edit this in.? ALSO found the foods bought from a store ie NPC Provisioner are missing, should these be added too? to make the Index of cooked foods more accurate? Asurmen32 16:24, 7 May 2011 (EDT)

It looks like these are just the crafted foods. I don't know if there's another table somewhere else with the bought foods in it or not. If there isn't, then maybe another table could be added here for them at some point. Amphoras 16:27, 7 May 2011 (EDT)
Yup, these are just the crafted cooked foods. Until the last update, the other cooked foods that could be purchased were only available from the Provisioner, so it wasn't necessary to have an index. Since they only added six more already prepared cooked food items, I'm not sure if an index is necessary or not . . . but the new crafted foods were missing from the list, so thanks for bringing that to attention. A table could be added (second heading) under the crafted table listing the purchaseable foods, if it looked necessary . . . I've got no opinion on that one way or the other. Rubyctook 19:06, 7 May 2011 (EDT)

Incorrect Sorting Order

I cannot be absolutely sure of the cause, but the Duration and Min Level columns do not sort correctly. Clicking on the sort up/down arrow, the columns fail on the 5 and 50 values. I believe, because these columns might be formatted as text, that the sorting is based solely on ASCII / Unicode values instead of being handled as numbers. In Windows OSes since ME/XP this has been a known issue with filenames where a sort would place file "A111111" before "A2". To correct for this, numbers had to be formatted with preceding zeros (so "A000002" would sort correctly in the previous example).

This does not invalidate the table, but it is not optimal. Other situations where sorting is offered on a mixed value (numbers and text) are going to experience the same difficulty unless specific data handling routines are used. (I know fixes are possible, but cannot advise how.) -- DoIHaveTo (talk) 03:16, 8 December 2011 (EST)