On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 3:51 PM, Anthony Emengo <aeme...@pivotal.io> wrote:
> Hi there, > > Yes, there's a lot of TODO that we intend for this effort - to be > submitted. We'd like to remove as much *direct* invocations on the ACI > Tree library, as it causes a lot of coupling to the library. It is not the > final patch, but we cannot come up with a definitive list of the things we > intend to do, at this time. > Is there any known TODO list? So that - I can help you figure out (if any more). -- Thanks, Ashesh > > On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 2:16 AM, Ashesh Vashi < > ashesh.va...@enterprisedb.com> wrote: > >> >> >> On Sat, Apr 28, 2018 at 3:55 AM, Joao De Almeida Pereira < >> jdealmeidapere...@pivotal.io> wrote: >> >>> Hi Hackers, >>> As you are aware we kept on working on the patch, so we are attaching to >>> this email a new version of the patch. >>> This new version contains all the changes in the previous one plus more >>> extractions of functions and refactoring of code. >>> >>> The objective of this patch is to create a separation between pgAdmin >>> and the ACI Tree. We are doing this because we realized that at this point >>> in time we have the ACI Tree all over the code of pgAdmin. I found a very >>> interesting article that really talks about this: >>> https://medium.freecodecamp.org/code-dependencies-are-the-de >>> vil-35ed28b556d >>> >>> In this patch there are some visions and ideas about the location of the >>> code, the way to organize it and also try to pave the future for a >>> application that is stable, easy to develop on and that can be release at a >>> times notice. >>> >>> We are investing a big chunk of our time in doing this refactoring, but >>> while doing that we also try to respond to the patches sent to the mailing >>> list. We would like the feedback from the community because we believe this >>> is a changing point for the application. The idea is to change the way we >>> develop this application, instead of only correcting a bug of developing a >>> feature, with every commit we should correct the bug or develop a feature >>> but leave the code a little better than we found it (Refactoring, >>> refactoring, refactoring). This is hard work but that is what the users >>> from pgAdmin expect from this community of developers. >>> >>> >>> ====== >>> >>> >>> >>> It is a huge patch >>> 86 files changed, 5492 inserts, 1840 deletions >>> and we would like to get your feedback as soon as possible, because we >>> are continuing to work on it which means it is going to grow in size. >>> >>> >>> At this point in time we still have 124 of 176 calls to the function >>> itemData from ACITree. >>> >>> What does each patch contain: >>> 0001: >>> Very simple patch, we found out that the linter was not looking into >>> all the javascript test files, so this patch will ensure it is >>> >>> 0002: >>> New Tree abstraction. This patch contains the new Tree that works as >>> an adaptor for ACI Tree and is going to be used on all the extractions that >>> we are doing >>> >>> 0003: >>> Code that extracts, wrap with tests and replace ACI Tree invocations. >>> We start creating new pattern for the location of Javascript files and >>> their structure. >>> Create patterns for creation of dialogs (backup and restore) >>> >> >> Do you have some TODO left for the same? >> Or, is this the final one? Because - it gives us the better understanding >> during reviewing the patch. >> >> -- Thanks, Ashesh >> >>> >>> >>> Thanks >>> Joao >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 5:34 AM Ashesh Vashi < >>> ashesh.va...@enterprisedb.com> wrote: >>> >>>> I have quite a few comments for the patch. >>>> I will send them soon. >>>> >>>> On Fri, Apr 27, 2018, 14:45 Dave Page <dp...@pgadmin.org> wrote: >>>> >>>>> How is your work on this going Ashesh? Will you be committing today? >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 8:52 AM, Dave Page <dp...@pgadmin.org> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Ashesh; you had agreed to work on this early this week. Please ensure >>>>>> you do so today. >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks. >>>>>> >>>>>> On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 8:13 PM, Joao De Almeida Pereira < >>>>>> jdealmeidapere...@pivotal.io> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi Hackers, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Can someone review and merge this patch? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks >>>>>>> Joao >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 10:23 AM Joao De Almeida Pereira < >>>>>>> jdealmeidapere...@pivotal.io> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hi Hackers, >>>>>>>> Any other comment about this patch? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thanks >>>>>>>> Joao >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 12:00 PM Joao De Almeida Pereira < >>>>>>>> jdealmeidapere...@pivotal.io> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Hello Khushboo >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Mon, Apr 9, 2018 at 1:59 AM Khushboo Vashi < >>>>>>>>> khushboo.va...@enterprisedb.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Hi Joao, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I have reviewed your patch and have some suggestions. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Sat, Apr 7, 2018 at 12:43 AM, Joao De Almeida Pereira < >>>>>>>>>> jdealmeidapere...@pivotal.io> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Hello Murtuza/Dave, >>>>>>>>>>> Yes now the extracted functions are spread into different files. >>>>>>>>>>> The intent would be to make the files as small as possible, and >>>>>>>>>>> also to >>>>>>>>>>> group and name them in a way that would be easy to understand what >>>>>>>>>>> each >>>>>>>>>>> file is doing without the need of opening it. >>>>>>>>>>> As a example: >>>>>>>>>>> static/js/backup will contain all the backup related >>>>>>>>>>> functionality inside of this folder we can see the file: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> menu_utils.js At this moment in time we decided to group all the >>>>>>>>>>> functions that are related to the menu, but we can split that also >>>>>>>>>>> if we >>>>>>>>>>> believe it is easier to see. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> It's really very good to see the separated code for backup >>>>>>>>>> module. As we have done for backup, we would like do it for other PG >>>>>>>>>> utilities like restore, maintenance etc. >>>>>>>>>> Considering this, we should separate the code in a way that some >>>>>>>>>> of the common functionalities can be used for other modules like >>>>>>>>>> menu (as >>>>>>>>>> you have mentioned above), dialogue factory etc. >>>>>>>>>> Also, I think these functionalities should be in their respective >>>>>>>>>> static folder instead of pgadmin/static. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> About the location of the files. The move of the files to >>>>>>>>> pgadmin/static/js was made on purpose in order to clearly separate >>>>>>>>> Javascript from python code. >>>>>>>>> The rational behind it was >>>>>>>>> - Create a clear separation between the backend and frontend >>>>>>>>> - Having Javascript code concentrated in a single place, >>>>>>>>> hopefully, will encourage to developers to look for a functionality, >>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>> is already implemented in another modules, because they are right >>>>>>>>> there. >>>>>>>>> (When we started this journey we realized that the 'nodes' have a big >>>>>>>>> groups of code that could be shared, but because the Javascript is >>>>>>>>> spread >>>>>>>>> everywhere it is much harder to look for it) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> There are some drawbacks of this separation: >>>>>>>>> - When creating a new module we will need to put the javascript in >>>>>>>>> a separate location from the backend code >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> static/js/datagrid folder contains all the datagrid related >>>>>>>>>>> functionality >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Same as backup module, this should be in it's respective >>>>>>>>>> static/js folder. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Inside of the folder we can see the files: >>>>>>>>>>> get_panel_title.js is responsible for retrieving the name of >>>>>>>>>>> the panel >>>>>>>>>>> show_data.js is responsible for showing the datagrid >>>>>>>>>>> show_query_tool.js is responsible for showing the query tool >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Does this structure make sense? >>>>>>>>>>> Can you give an example of a comment that you think is missing >>>>>>>>>>> and that could help? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> As a personal note, unless the algorithm is very obscure or very >>>>>>>>>>> complicated, I believe that if the code needs comments it is a >>>>>>>>>>> signal that >>>>>>>>>>> something needs to change in terms of naming, structure of the part >>>>>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>>>> question. This being said, I am open to add some comments that >>>>>>>>>>> might help >>>>>>>>>>> people. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> You are right, with the help of naming convention and structure >>>>>>>>>> of the code, any one can get the idea about the code. But it is very >>>>>>>>>> useful >>>>>>>>>> to understand the code >>>>>>>>>> very easily with the proper comments especially when there are >>>>>>>>>> multiple developers working on a single project. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I found some of the places where it would be great to have >>>>>>>>>> comments. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> - treeMenu: new tree.Tree() in a browser.js >>>>>>>>>> - tree.js (especially Tree class) >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> About the comment point I need a more clear understanding on what >>>>>>>>> kind of comments you are looking for. Because when you read the >>>>>>>>> function >>>>>>>>> names you understand the intent, what they are doing. The parameters >>>>>>>>> also >>>>>>>>> explain what you need to pass into them. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> If what you are looking for in these comments is the reasoning >>>>>>>>> being the change itself, then that should be present in the commit >>>>>>>>> message. >>>>>>>>> Specially because this is going to be a very big patch with a very big >>>>>>>>> number of changes. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Thanks >>>>>>>>>>> Joao >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>>>>> Khushboo >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Apr 6, 2018 at 4:48 AM Murtuza Zabuawala < >>>>>>>>>>> murtuza.zabuaw...@enterprisedb.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Joao, >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Patch looks good and working as expected. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I also agree with Dave, Can we please add some comments in each >>>>>>>>>>>> file which can help us to understand the flow, I'm saying because >>>>>>>>>>>> now the >>>>>>>>>>>> code is segregated in so many separate files it will be hard to >>>>>>>>>>>> keep track >>>>>>>>>>>> of the flow from one file to another when debugging. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>>>>>>> Murtuza Zabuawala >>>>>>>>>>>> EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com >>>>>>>>>>>> The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 7:08 PM, Joao De Almeida Pereira < >>>>>>>>>>>> jdealmeidapere...@pivotal.io> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Khushboo, >>>>>>>>>>>>> Attached you can find both patches rebased >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 6:31 AM Khushboo Vashi < >>>>>>>>>>>>> khushboo.va...@enterprisedb.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Joao, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can you please rebase the second patch? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Khushboo >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Apr 3, 2018 at 12:15 AM, Joao De Almeida Pereira < >>>>>>>>>>>>>> jdealmeidapere...@pivotal.io> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Hackers, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Attached you can find the patch that will start to decouple >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pgAdmin from ACITree library. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This patch is intended to be merged after 3.0, because we do >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not want to cause any entropy or delay the release, but we want >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to start >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the discussion and show some code. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This job that we started is a massive tech debt chore that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will take some time to finalize and we would love the help of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the community >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to do it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Summary of the patch:* >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 0001 patch: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Creates a new tree that will allow us to create a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> separation between the application and ACI Tree >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Creates a Fake Tree (Test double, for reference on the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> available test doubles: https://martinfowler. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> com/bliki/TestDouble.html) that can be used to inplace to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> replace the ACITree and also encapsulate the new tree behavior >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on our tests >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Adds tests for all the tree functionalities >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 0002 patch: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Extracts, refactors, adds tests and remove dependency >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from ACI Tree on: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - getTreeNodeHierarchy >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - on backup.js: menu_enabled, menu_enabled_server, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> start_backup_global_server, backup_objects >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - on datagrid.js: show_data_grid, get_panel_title, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> show_query_tool >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Start using sprintf-js as Underscore.String is deprecating >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sprintf function >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This patch represents only 10 calls to ACITree.itemData out >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of 176 that are spread around our code >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *In Depth look on the process behind the patch:* >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We started writing this patch with the idea that we need to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> decouple pgAdmin4 from ACITree, because ACITree is no longer >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> supported, the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> documentation is non existent and ACITree is no longer being >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actively >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> developed. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Our process: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. We "randomly" selected a function that is part of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ACITree. From this point we decided to replace that function >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with our own >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> version. The function that we choose was "itemData". >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The function gives us all the "data" that a specific node of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the tree find. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Given in order to replace the tree we would need to have a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> function that would give us the same information. We had 2 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> options: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a) Create a tree with a function called itemData >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Pros: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - At first view this was the simpler solution >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Would keep the status quo >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cons: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Not a OOP approach >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Not very flexible >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> b) Create a tree that would return a node given an ID and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then the node would be responsible for giving it's data. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Pros: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - OOP Approach >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - More flexible and we do not need to bring the tree >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> around, just a node >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cons: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Break the current status quo >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Given these 2 options we decided to go for a more OOP >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> approach creating a Tree and a TreeNode classes, that in the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> future will be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> renamed to ACITreeWrapper and TreeNode. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. After we decided on the starting point we searched for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> occurrences of the function "itemData" and we found out that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there were 303 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> occurrences of "itemData" in the code and roughly 176 calls to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the function >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> itself (some of the hits were variable names). >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3. We selected the first file on the search and found the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> function that was responsible for calling the itemData function. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 4. Extracted the function to a separate file >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 5. Wrap this function with tests >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 6. Refactor the function to ES6, give more declarative names >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to variables and break the functions into smaller chunks >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 7. When all the tests were passing we replaced ACITree with >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> our Tree >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 8. We ensured that all tests were passing >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 9. Remove function from the original file and use the new >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> function >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 10. Ensure everything still works >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 11. Find the next function and execute from step 4 until all >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the functions are replaced, refactored and tested. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As you can see by the process this is a pretty huge >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> undertake, because of the number of calls to the function. This >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is just the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> first step on the direction of completely isolating the ACITree >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so that we >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can solve the problem with a large number of elements on the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tree. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *What is on our radar that we need to address:* >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Finish the complete decoupling of the ACITree >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Performance of the current tree implementation >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Tweak the naming of the Tree class to explicitly tell us >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this is to use only with ACITree. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Joao >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Dave Page >>>>>> Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com >>>>>> Twitter: @pgsnake >>>>>> >>>>>> EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com >>>>>> The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Dave Page >>>>> Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com >>>>> Twitter: @pgsnake >>>>> >>>>> EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com >>>>> The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company >>>>> >>>> >> >
