Le jeudi 23 avril 2015 11:44:49 Dave Page a écrit : > On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 9:18 AM, Ashesh Vashi <ashesh.vashi@enterprisedb.com > > wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 12:52 PM, Ronan Dunklau <ronan.dunklau@dalibo.com> > > > > wrote: > >> Le jeudi 23 avril 2015 10:53:48 Ashesh Vashi a écrit : > >> > Hi Dave/Ronan, > >> > > >> > On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 4:10 PM, Dave Page <dpage@pgadmin.org> wrote: > >> > > On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 10:52 AM, Ronan Dunklau > >> > > > >> > > <ronan.dunklau@dalibo.com> wrote: > >> > > >> Ronan; can you update the test, help and about modules as well > >> > >> please? > >> > >> > > > Done, please find attached a new patch for that. Ashesh, once > >> > > > you're > >> > > > >> > > done with > >> > > > >> > > > what you are doing now, feel free to ask me for any help needed to > >> > > > >> > > integrate > >> > > > >> > > > this after the fact. > >> > > > >> > > Thanks. > >> > > >> > Thanks - It looks good to me. > >> > > >> > (And, attached patch is based on that.) > >> > >> Maybe I'm missing something, but it seems like a "generate_browser_node" > >> function is missing: > >> > >> > >> > >> File > >> "/home/ro/projets/pgadmin4/web/pgadmin/browser/server_groups/__init__.py" > >> , > >> line 21, in <module> > >> > >> from pgadmin.browser.utils import generate_browser_node > >> > >> ImportError: cannot import name generate_browser_node > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> It also brought to my attention that I should have removed the only > >> function (register_modules) from pgadmin.browser.utils. > > > > Yeah - it is missing. > > Please find a separate patch for the utils. > > > > Actually - you removed the web/pgadmin/browser/utils.py, hence - when I > > made the patch on top of yours, git detected the file as new file, and did > > not include the diff for it. > > The attached patch is only for utils file. > > Hi > > I can't persuade these patches to apply to my tree. When you get a minute, > can you please send me a complete 'git diff' of everything from HEAD? > > Thanks.
Here is the diff from my tree after applying both Ashesh's patches on top of mine.
As for the json handling, what do you think about using standard http codes ? It feels a bit strange to receive a 200 when the operation could not be completed.
For example, right now, adding a server returns a "missing required parameter (host)." That should return a 400 (Bad Request) in my opinion, with the detailed error message in the response.