public inbox for [email protected]
help / color / mirror / Atom feedFrom: Harshal Dhumal <[email protected]>
To: Joao Pedro De Almeida Pereira <[email protected]>
Cc: pgadmin-hackers <[email protected]>
Cc: Shruti B Iyer <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Fix for RM2421 [pgAdmin4][patch]
Date: Fri, 19 May 2017 12:22:41 +0530
Message-ID: <CAFiP3vzxqm6Utwf4uWXZ=B267W4apToLG8WYVcjG6Q9xSNqgGQ@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAE+jja=+qP+rTkXf=Gcciyiyz7B2ep5f-YO49Nf_5Aq_zx9t=A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAFiP3vx-B-8LzOQ+hiP0SNTJ22CqsXM2hLJUUgJWYm6XVtgMDQ@mail.gmail.com>
<CAE+jja=+qP+rTkXf=Gcciyiyz7B2ep5f-YO49Nf_5Aq_zx9t=A@mail.gmail.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:[email protected]?body=unsub%20pgadmin-hackers>
Hi,
On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 7:57 PM, Joao Pedro De Almeida Pereira <
[email protected]> 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/backform.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. Ideally
only 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/backform.pgadmin.js
> @@ -1573,25 +1584,23 @@
> this.model.errorModel.unset(name);
> 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.errorModel.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/backform.pgadmin.js
> @@ -1528,7 +1528,18 @@
>
> @@ -1573,25 +1584,23 @@
>
> @@ -1631,7 +1640,18 @@
>
> @@ -1676,25 +1696,23 @@
>
>
>
> Thanks
> Joao & Shruti
>
> On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 6:01 AM, Harshal Dhumal <
> [email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Please find attached patch for RM2421
>>
>> Issue fixed: 1. Integer/numeric Validation is not working properly.
>> 2. Wrong CPU rate unit
>> --
>> *Harshal Dhumal*
>> *Sr. Software Engineer*
>>
>> EnterpriseDB India: http://www.enterprisedb.com
>> The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
>>
>>
>> --
>> Sent via pgadmin-hackers mailing list ([email protected])
>> To make changes to your subscription:
>> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgadmin-hackers
>>
>>
>
view thread (11+ messages) latest in thread
reply
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
Subject: Re: Fix for RM2421 [pgAdmin4][patch]
In-Reply-To: <CAFiP3vzxqm6Utwf4uWXZ=B267W4apToLG8WYVcjG6Q9xSNqgGQ@mail.gmail.com>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by agora; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox