[BUG] Swapped MIN & MAX Fuel ecconomy when L/100KM

[kalwadi]

Checklist
Please make sure you have performed the following steps before opening a new bug ticket, change [ ] to [x] to mark it as done

• I have read and tried the steps outlined in the Troubleshooting Guide
• I have searched through existing issues.

Description
When using L/100km it shows "worse" fuel economy as MIN (screenshot).
I think it's because with MPG higher number is better. Or I'm possibly misunderstanding what MIN & MAX is intended to mean, but I understood it as MIN = best (since you are consuming as little fuel as possible)

Not sure if it's relevant but I use en-DE Locale Override and en-CH LocaleDateTimeOverride

Platform

• Docker Image
• Windows/Linux Standalone Executable

Screenshots(optional)

Acknowledgment

• I acknowledge that LubeLogger is a side project and that development efforts are entirely voluntary. I do not expect the core maintainers to respond to this issue, and I will not hound or chase them regarding this issue or any other issues.

[iamdabe]

I think 'MAX' in this instance is supposed to be 'the best' (i..e maximum efficiency) and the 'MIN' is 'the worst' as in the minimum efficiency, At least thats how I read it. so maximum efficient was 5.7 L/100km compared to the worst which was 6L/100km

[Merinorus]

If I remember, it's because the L/100km (quantity per distance) is inverted compared to MPG (distance per quantity), hence the inverted min/max values when switching to the non-default unit. Some people using L/100km unit fixed this by modifying their translation. It's a bit hacky though.

Edit: #478

Problem: for the same language, some people may use both units. Note that the english strings are "min/max fuel economy". I'm using the french translation which is inverted (min/max consommation= min/max consumption).

Edit: I double checked your screenshot, the English strings are okay: 6L/100km is less efficient than 5L/100km. It can be confusing, a better translation might be found but it is technically correct. You may invert the translation if it's more natural to reason in terms of consumption in your language.

[Merinorus]

I think 'MAX' in this instance is supposed to be 'the best' (i..e maximum efficiency) and the 'MIN' is 'the worst' as in the minimum efficiency, At least thats how I read it. so maximum efficient was 5.7 L/100km compared to the worst which was 6L/100km

As you said, I updated the French translation (hargata/lubelog_translations#94) and reasoned like you with "best" and "worst" terms, which work with both metric and imperial systems.