fix(image): sort images by vulnerability count by default

[tsim-sap]

Description

This PR forces the ordering to prioritize sorting by vulnerability count and then use alphabetical ordering as a fallback.

• 🐛 Bug Fix

Related Tickets & Documents

Fixes #1125

Added tests?

• 👍 yes

Added to documentation?

• 🙅 no documentation needed

Checklist

• My code follows the style guidelines of this project
• I have performed a self-review of my code
• I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
• I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
• My changes generate no new warnings
• I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my feature works
• New and existing unit tests pass locally with my changes

[Copilot]

Copilot reviewed 3 out of 3 changed files in this pull request and generated 2 comments.

---

💡 Add Copilot custom instructions for smarter, more guided reviews. Learn how to get started.

[Copilot]

Logic error in needAllComponentByServiceVulnerabilityCounts: the condition was changed from orderByCount && to !orderByCount &&, which inverts the logic. This means the materialized view will now be joined when NOT ordering by vulnerability counts, which is the opposite of the intended behavior. When vulnerability count ordering is applied globally in ImageBaseResolver, this join will never be used, causing potentially incorrect results.

Suggested change

	return !orderByCount && (len(filter.Id) == 0 && (len(filter.ServiceCCRN) > 0))
	return orderByCount && (len(filter.Id) == 0 && (len(filter.ServiceCCRN) > 0))

[Copilot]

The test has a TODO comment acknowledging that it doesn't verify secondary ordering (by repository name) when vulnerability counts are equal. Consider adding test data with images having the same vulnerability counts but different repository names to fully validate the secondary ordering behavior.

Suggested change

	// The test data setup creates images with different vulnerability counts
	// We expect them to be ordered by: critical, high, medium, low, none counts (descending)
	// then by repository name (ascending) as tiebreaker
	// TODO: make sure there is a case with same vulnerability counts but different repository names to verify the secondary ordering as well
	// Extract the vulnerability counts for comparison
	var previousCounts model.SeverityCounts
	for i, edge := range respData.Images.Edges {
	counts := *edge.Node.VulnerabilityCounts
	if i > 0 {
	comparison := e2e_common.CompareSeverityCounts(counts, previousCounts)
	Expect(comparison).To(BeNumerically("<=", 0),
	fmt.Sprintf("Image %d (%s) should have equal or lower severity than image %d (%s). Counts: %v vs %v",
	i, *edge.Node.Repository, i-1, *respData.Images.Edges[i-1].Node.Repository, counts, previousCounts))
	}
	previousCounts = counts
	Expect(edge.Node.Repository).ToNot(BeNil(), "Image should have repository")
	Expect(edge.Node.VulnerabilityCounts).ToNot(BeNil(), "Image should have vulnerability counts")
	}
	// and by repository name in ascending order as a tiebreaker.
	var previousCounts model.SeverityCounts
	var previousRepository string
	hadEqualCountsPair := false
	for i, edge := range respData.Images.Edges {
	Expect(edge.Node.Repository).ToNot(BeNil(), "Image should have repository")
	Expect(edge.Node.VulnerabilityCounts).ToNot(BeNil(), "Image should have vulnerability counts")
	counts := *edge.Node.VulnerabilityCounts
	repository := *edge.Node.Repository
	if i > 0 {
	comparison := e2e_common.CompareSeverityCounts(counts, previousCounts)
	Expect(comparison).To(BeNumerically("<=", 0),
	fmt.Sprintf("Image %d (%s) should have equal or lower severity than image %d (%s). Counts: %v vs %v",
	i, repository, i-1, previousRepository, counts, previousCounts))
	if comparison == 0 {
	hadEqualCountsPair = true
	Expect(previousRepository <= repository).To(BeTrue(),
	fmt.Sprintf("Image %d (%s) should sort after image %d (%s) when severity counts are equal. Counts: %v",
	i, repository, i-1, previousRepository, counts))
	}
	}
	previousCounts = counts
	previousRepository = repository
	}
	Expect(hadEqualCountsPair).To(BeTrue(),
	"Test setup should include at least one pair of images with equal vulnerability counts but different repository names to verify secondary ordering")