Re: [pgadmin-hackers] Fix for RM2421 [pgAdmin4][patch] - Mailing list pgadmin-hackers
From | Harshal Dhumal |
---|---|
Subject | Re: [pgadmin-hackers] Fix for RM2421 [pgAdmin4][patch] |
Date | |
Msg-id | CAFiP3vyr0=6b3xaHJ0zNcQCDFCxSaunNb=tRHJmQMgs=e54N=w@mail.gmail.com Whole thread Raw |
In response to | Re: [pgadmin-hackers] Fix for RM2421 [pgAdmin4][patch] (Harshal Dhumal <harshal.dhumal@enterprisedb.com>) |
Responses |
Re: [pgadmin-hackers] Fix for RM2421 [pgAdmin4][patch]
|
List | pgadmin-hackers |
Hi,
Please find updated patch.
--
Harshal Dhumal
Sr. Software Engineer
On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 12:30 PM, Harshal Dhumal <harshal.dhumal@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
Hi,Please ignore this patch as I forgot to include few changes. I'll send updated one.--Harshal DhumalSr. Software EngineerOn Mon, May 29, 2017 at 3:18 PM, Harshal Dhumal <harshal.dhumal@enterprisedb.com> wrote: Hi,Here is updated patch for RM2421.Now I have moved all Numeric control level validations to datamodel. As existing implementation was causingissues with error messages in create/edit dialog when schema contains two or more Numeric controls.This is generic issue and not related to resource group. Also I have updated all other nodes which uses Numeric controls--Harshal DhumalSr. Software EngineerOn Fri, May 19, 2017 at 12:22 PM, Harshal Dhumal <harshal.dhumal@enterprisedb.com> wrote: Hi,On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 7:57 PM, Joao Pedro De Almeida Pereira <jdealmeidapereira@pivotal.io> wrote:Hello Harshal,We review the patch and have some questions:1) Is there any particular reason to initialize variables and functions in the same place? We believe that it would be more readable there were no chaining of variable creation, specially if those variables are functions. Check line:That function is only going to be used in checkNumeric function (in case of Number control) and checkInt function (in case of Integer control) so declared them locally.Anyway I'm going to refactor both the controls as Number and Integer shares some common properties.+++ b/web/pgadmin/static/js/backfo
rm.pgadmin.js @@ -1528,7 +1528,18 @@ max_value = field.max, isValid = true, intPattern = new RegExp("^-?[0-9]*$"), - isMatched = intPattern.test(value); + isMatched = intPattern.test(value), + trigger_invalid_event = function(msg) { 2) The functions added in both places look very similar, can they be merged and extracted? We are talking about the trigger_invalid_event function. Yes they can be merged. As of now both NumericControl and IntegerControl are derived from InputControl. Ideallyonly NumericControl should be derived from InputControl and IntegerControl should be derive from NumericControl.3) The following change is very similar to the trigger_invalid_event, was there a reason not to use it?Below code triggers "model valid" event; opposite to "model invalid" event (trigger_invalid_event)+++ b/web/pgadmin/static/js/backfo
rm.pgadmin.js @@ -1573,25 +1584,23 @@ this.model.errorModel.unset(na me); this.model.set(name, value); this.listenTo(this.model, "change:" + name, this.render); - if (this.model.collection || this.model.handler) { - (this.model.collection || this.model.handler).trigger( - 'pgadmin-session:model:valid', this.model, (this.model.collection || this.model.handler) - ); + // Check if other fields of same model are valid before + // triggering 'session:valid' event + if(_.size(this.model.errorMode l.attributes) == 0) { + if (this.model.collection || this.model.handler) { + (this.model.collection || this.model.handler).trigger( + 'pgadmin-session:model:valid', this.model, (this.model.collection || this.model.handler) + ); + } else { + (this.model).trigger( + 'pgadmin-session:valid', this.model.sessChanged(), this.model + ); + } 4) We also noticed that the following change sets look very similiar. Is there any reason to have this code duplicated? If not this could be a good time to refactor it.As said earlier in response of point 2 code duplication is because the way controls are derived.+++ b/web/pgadmin/static/js/backfo
rm.pgadmin.js @@ -1528,7 +1528,18 @@ @@ -1573,25 +1584,23 @@ @@ -1631,7 +1640,18 @@ @@ -1676,25 +1696,23 @@ ThanksJoao & ShrutiOn Thu, May 18, 2017 at 6:01 AM, Harshal Dhumal <harshal.dhumal@enterprisedb.com> wrote: --Hi,Please find attached patch for RM2421Issue fixed: 1. Integer/numeric Validation is not working properly.2. Wrong CPU rate unit--Harshal DhumalSr. Software Engineer
Sent via pgadmin-hackers mailing list (pgadmin-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgadmin-hackers
Attachment
pgadmin-hackers by date: