Don't depend on unordered object

[falsefalse]

Before, passing range as {min: 1, max: 5, 25%: 2, 50%: 3} and {min: 1, 25%: 2, 50%: 3, max: 5} would mean different results.
Because objects are not guaranteed to return keys in same order, 2 resulting number arrays need to be sorted.

[falsefalse]

There are also this.xSteps and this.xNumSteps arrays, I'm not sure if they need sorting as well.

Also please let me know if you want me to add tests for this.

[falsefalse]

This is also similar to #323

[leongersen]

The other arrays would need sorting too, as they are referenced by the same indexes as the range. Im fairly sure the current tests will guarantee the normal behavior, but tests demonstrating the ability to provide unsorted arrays would be nice.

I'm working to get some other fixes merged, so this could ship before the new year.

[falsefalse]

How do I approach sorting the other two, then? They contain mixed type values, numeric sort won't do as easily. What are they for?

[leongersen]

xSteps holds the percentage-based size of the step for the current sub-range, relative to the sub-range. xNumSteps contains the numeric value for those steps. The value will be false if there is no step for the sub-range. The sort has to be identical to the sorting of the range, so that index n in the range array would match the same n in the steps array, before and after sorting.

[falsefalse]

It passes tests

[leongersen]

This is in the newest release: 7.0.10. Thanks a lot for your contributions!

[falsefalse]

Awesome!

And thanks a lot for your prompt replies :)
On 27 Dec 2014 16:08, "Leon Gersen" notifications@github.com wrote:

This is in the newest release: 7.0.10. Thanks a lot for your contributions!

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#393 (comment).