Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1bDAZ8-0004TF-Oz for pgadmin-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Wed, 15 Jun 2016 13:09:06 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with smtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1bDAZ8-0005Po-5O for pgadmin-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Wed, 15 Jun 2016 13:09:06 +0000 Received: from makus.postgresql.org ([2001:4800:1501:1::229]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1bDAZ7-0005Ph-AO for pgadmin-hackers@postgresql.org; Wed, 15 Jun 2016 13:09:05 +0000 Received: from mail-it0-x22a.google.com ([2607:f8b0:4001:c0b::22a]) by makus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1bDAZ4-00040w-1f for pgadmin-hackers@postgresql.org; Wed, 15 Jun 2016 13:09:03 +0000 Received: by mail-it0-x22a.google.com with SMTP id z189so104963215itg.0 for ; Wed, 15 Jun 2016 06:09:01 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=enterprisedb-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=R5NibfoPE6nhU36h5TRQFNGpuZRUrZRoOhtd1+cX8jY=; b=PARPaiQehbanFGUSd4Avo1kfLGwXgP4coYeYaGCCwEkNzPF/PyX28S1IxeZTDY5NNS YWroXuLvpF0Gq1q2Fgjxa2gjmt4sZBkYZwTcrothtoZUCEuG/Z8bk85+Qn3c8Z5PKm1Z h8amLID2NyXWBW4b5ZyECxar+fwrdx8ics5fbziYk4ZjTCAydvIk1KYLJcC74A4ecgAS ecEgCP1tDCn0q3/Hx3KxLOt69XWLs98CQ+0/FUSY5nBKCV19zmL/RQv+NAuR0gmirPgi EM+JBzM8JUXlVCWtnQGBIFYTo7/RM2g6XsA5ghFKyPCAN7GxD0XkUHmH/m6omKt/da38 E9xg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=R5NibfoPE6nhU36h5TRQFNGpuZRUrZRoOhtd1+cX8jY=; b=YyFvxMW078X+7mzHcVXhsr2/KujnytokV0dM50sitB91vodJzYNpUCSeruJ/TvUw2O +SvlbwKXK4AaRe7Y81LJJ6Z6YoXg3T1RLNu/Tgp250/mIFtzWnIqUDCBr90+X5SBM2AW AinrBQ03sLj4LnIPtgqFsXK4IvskaaJ3mmRgqrJ2SLIflOFgh2RVc7LMTzPlUfdzWd1f Me5DY1/neBSqYBNKaI/VWmg4ID8sHLqYzT4cFbYxLNnNnKAtsbqoBJputMh0ry7ITNOH L3LbRb1pAxWFjMYx/J4R9EStSiptVspNaWA9030DFnxS8+jxd78cmESQKq5iIaiBaPoJ JGCw== X-Gm-Message-State: ALyK8tI3fn5Hr3RxFuYwt71RMDJMdjqYTybOPxRQ7vQ4rivlgQhqvhAzGkmsX9LjCT4HxioOOliKO/S07UGfo2Ek X-Received: by 10.107.141.203 with SMTP id p194mr41036749iod.149.1465996141166; Wed, 15 Jun 2016 06:09:01 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.107.133.217 with HTTP; Wed, 15 Jun 2016 06:08:41 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: From: Ashesh Vashi Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2016 18:38:41 +0530 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Regarding issue 1241 To: Dave Page Cc: Harshal Dhumal , pgadmin-hackers Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=94eb2c05c9d03ca474053550d34f X-Pg-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--) List-Archive: List-Help: List-ID: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Mailing-List: pgadmin-hackers Precedence: bulk Sender: pgadmin-hackers-owner@postgresql.org --94eb2c05c9d03ca474053550d34f Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 6:25 PM, Dave Page wrote: > On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 1:49 PM, Ashesh Vashi > wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 1:59 PM, Dave Page wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >> On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 8:53 PM, Harshal Dhumal > >> wrote: > >>> > >>> Hi Dave, > >>> > >>> Regarding Issue 1241: > >>> > >>> We have added header section for parameter tab deliberately so that we > >>> can force user to select parameter name (and therefore parameter's data > >>> type) before adding new row. This is required because behavior of > second > >>> cell (Value cell) is dependent on what parameter name user has > selected in > >>> first cell (Name cell). See attached screen-shot. > >>> > >>> For example: > >>> 1. If user selects parameter 'array_nulls' then value for this should > be > >>> either true or false (and hence switch cell). > >>> 2. If user selects parameter 'cpu_index_tuple_cost' then value for this > >>> should be Integer (and hence Integer cell). > >>> > >>> Without the custom header (and forcing user to select parameter) we > >>> cannot decide what type of cell we need in second column. > >>> > >>> Let me know your opinion on this. > >> > >> > >> We need to figure out a way to fix it. Our difficulties encountered > >> writing code should not dictate usability compromises. > >> > >> In this case, something that needs some thought and maybe some tricky > code > >> has caused us to create an inconsistent UI workflow to side-step the > >> problem, which is not appropriate as it leads to a poor look and feel > and > >> potentially confusion for the user. > > > > Agree - we should handle these cases gracefully. > > We need to over come the limitation by brain storming, which we already > > started offline. :-) > > > > To be honest - it is a time consuming work, and there is no quick fix for > > this. > > We can handle it as one case for each change instead of targeting all UI > > changes as one whole problem. > > And, we can utilize the same time to fix a lot more cases in beta 2. > > As far as I'm aware, this is the only case where there's a real problem. > > > I can ask Harshal to find out all possible places, where the similar > changes > > are required, and create a separate case for each (though - not without > your > > agreement). > > I don't think we need to. This one sub-node grid (parameters) is the > only one that I've seen where we deviate from the intended design - > and I think I've seen them all now! > Hmm.. Unfortunately - some set of columns needs to be unique in most of the cases (where these controls are used), and the checks for the unique dataset is done at the control side, which was wrong at our end. And, we will need to change the model validation code to check the uniqueness of data set at data level (through Backbone.Model) now, which will require a lot more changes than it looks. For example - in table node, we have too many UniqueCollControl, which requires these changes. -- Thanks & Regards, Ashesh Vashi EnterpriseDB INDIA: Enterprise PostgreSQL Company *http://www.linkedin.com/in/asheshvashi* > > -- > Dave Page > Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com > Twitter: @pgsnake > > EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com > The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company > --94eb2c05c9d03ca474053550d34f Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 6:25 PM, Da= ve Page <dpage@pgadmin.org> wrote:

On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 1:49 PM, Ashesh Vashi
<ashesh.vashi@enterpris= edb.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 1:59 PM, Dave Page <dpage@pgadmin.org> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 8:53 PM, Harshal Dhumal
>> <harshal.dhu= mal@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Dave,
>>>
>>> Regarding Issue 1241:
>>>
>>> We have added header section for parameter tab deliberately so= that we
>>> can force user to select parameter name (and therefore paramet= er's data
>>> type) before adding new row. This is required because behavior= of second
>>> cell (Value cell) is dependent on what parameter name user has= selected in
>>> first cell (Name cell). See attached screen-shot.
>>>
>>> For example:
>>> 1. If user selects parameter 'array_nulls' then value = for this should be
>>> either true or false (and hence switch cell).
>>> 2. If user selects parameter 'cpu_index_tuple_cost' th= en value for this
>>> should be Integer (and hence Integer cell).
>>>
>>> Without the custom header (and forcing user to select paramete= r) we
>>> cannot decide what type of cell we need in second column.
>>>
>>> Let me know your opinion on this.
>>
>>
>> We need to figure out a way to fix it. Our difficulties encountere= d
>> writing code should not dictate usability compromises.
>>
>> In this case, something that needs some thought and maybe some tri= cky code
>> has caused us to create an inconsistent UI workflow to side-step t= he
>> problem, which is not appropriate as it leads to a poor look and f= eel and
>> potentially confusion for the user.
>
> Agree - we should handle these cases gracefully.
> We need to over come the limitation by brain storming, which we alread= y
> started offline. :-)
>
> To be honest - it is a time consuming work, and there is no quick fix = for
> this.
> We can handle it as one case for each change instead of targeting all = UI
> changes as one whole problem.
> And, we can utilize the same time to fix a lot more cases in beta 2.
As far as I'm aware, this is the only case where there'= s a real problem.

> I can ask Harshal to find out all possible places, where the similar c= hanges
> are required, and create a separate case for each (though - not withou= t your
> agreement).

I don't think we need to. This one sub-node grid (parameters) is= the
only one that I've seen where we deviate from the intended design -
and I think I've seen them all now!
Hmm..

Unfortunately - some set of columns needs to be unique in = most of the cases (where these controls are used), and the checks for the u= nique dataset is done at the control side, which was wrong at our end.
And, we will need to change the model validation code to check the un= iqueness of data set at data level (through Backbone.Model) now, which will= require a lot more changes than it looks.

For exa= mple - in table node, we have too many UniqueCollControl, which requires th= ese changes.

--

= Thanks & Regards,

Ashesh Vashi
EnterpriseDB I= NDIA:=C2=A0Enterprise PostgreSQL Company


http://www.linkedin.com/in/asheshvashi


--
Dave Page
Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com
Twitter: @pgsnake

EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

--94eb2c05c9d03ca474053550d34f--