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

igGridGroupBy: summaries are ot applied properly when grouping by date column and using min or max functions #2232

Open
RivaIvanova opened this issue Jun 9, 2023 · 2 comments

Comments

@RivaIvanova
Copy link
Member

Description

When grouping by a column of type date and applying additional summary configurations for other columns, the results differ when using min or max aggregate functions.

Consider the following configuration:

features: [
  {
    name: "GroupBy",
    groupedRowTextTemplate: "${val} (${count})",
    columnSettings: [
      {
        columnKey: "OrderDate",
        isGroupBy: true,
      },
      {
	columnKey: "UnitPrice",
	summaries: [
          {
             summaryFunction: "min",
             text: "Min :",
          }
        ]
      }
    ],
    summarySettings: {
      summaryFormat: "#.00",
    },
  },
],

The summary result displays the value 1/1/1970:
igGridSummariesMin

However, when setting to another aggregate function, for example, avg,

      {
	columnKey: "UnitPrice",
	summaries: [
          {
             summaryFunction: "avg",
             text: "Average :",
          }
        ]
      }

the result is the following:
igGridSummariesAvg

This is due to the following check in the _summaries function:
igGridSummaries

  • ignite-ui version: 22.2
  • browser: any

Steps to reproduce

  1. Open this sample.
  2. Observe the Unit Price Min value.

Result

The results differ when using min or max aggregate functions.

Expected result

The results should be a number representing the min or max value inside the column.

@IsiAymeric
Copy link

Hello,

I would like to know when this bug will be corrected. Is there any upcoming release that includes the correction? It's still not working for us, and it's critical for our operations.

Thank you.

@ChronosSF
Copy link
Member

@IsiAymeric , please have in mind that 22.2 is no longer supported and while we plan to release a fix soon, it will only be available in 23.1 and 23.2

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants