Hi Victoria,
On Wed, Jun 6, 2018 at 8:55 PM, Victoria Henry <vhe...@pivotal.io> wrote:
> Hi Aditya,
>
> 1) Why don't we start using webpack alias's instead of using absolute
>> path. For eg,
>> import {RestoreDialogWrapper} from '../../../pgadmin/static/js/
>> restore/restore_dialog_wrapper';
>> can be used as import {RestoreDialogWrapper} from
>> 'pgadmin_static/js/restore/restore_dialog_wrapper';
>> by adding pgadmin_static alias to webpack config.
>
>
> Great point. In some areas of the code, we began making this change.
> There is already an alias in webpack shims for `../../../pgadmin/static/js`
> called `sources`. You can find an example of this in import statements for
> `supported_database_node.js`
>
> 2) Few of the js are left behind, the ones which are used in python
>> __init__.py. Can't we move them too ? It would be nicer to not to leave
>> behind a single js.
>
> I'm not sure what you mean. Could you point to an example of a single js
> file?
>
Sure. I did not find moving
web/pgadmin/tools/datagrid/static/js/datagrid.js. Please correct me if I am
missing anything.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Victoria
>
> On Wed, Jun 6, 2018 at 7:07 AM Aditya Toshniwal <aditya.toshniwal@
> enterprisedb.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi Anthony/Victoria/Joao,
>>
>> I know I am very late to review on patch 004. The idea of moving js files
>> from tools to static folder looks good, but I have a few suggestions:
>>
>> 1) Why don't we start using webpack alias's instead of using absolute
>> path. For eg,
>> import {RestoreDialogWrapper} from '../../../pgadmin/static/js/
>> restore/restore_dialog_wrapper';
>> can be used as import {RestoreDialogWrapper} from
>> 'pgadmin_static/js/restore/restore_dialog_wrapper';
>> by adding pgadmin_static alias to webpack config.
>>
>> 2) Few of the js are left behind, the ones which are used in python
>> __init__.py. Can't we move them too ? It would be nicer to not to leave
>> behind a single js.
>>
>> Kindly let me know your views on this.
>>
>>
>> Thanks and Regards,
>> Aditya Toshniwal
>> Software Engineer | EnterpriseDB Software Solutions | Pune
>> "Don't Complain about Heat, Plant a tree"
>>
>> On Sat, Jun 2, 2018 at 12:47 AM, Victoria Henry <vhe...@pivotal.io>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hey Ashesh,
>>>
>>> LGTM! The some of the CI tests failed but it looks like a flake. But
>>> you can go ahead and merge this.
>>>
>>> Sincerely,
>>>
>>> Victoria
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 2:36 PM Ashesh Vashi <
>>> ashesh.va...@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 10:09 PM, Victoria Henry <vhe...@pivotal.io>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi Ashesh,
>>>>>
>>>>> We just attempted to apply your patch over master but it did not
>>>>> work. We don't want to introduce any bugs or break any functionality.
>>>>> Please update the patch to make sure it is synced up with the master
>>>>> branch.
>>>>>
>>>> Please find the updated patch.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Sincerely,
>>>>>
>>>>> Victoria
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 11:18 AM Anthony Emengo <aeme...@pivotal.io>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hey Ashesh,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks for the explanation. It was great and it really helped!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> C
>>>>>> pgadmin/browser/server_groups/servers/databases/schemas/static/js/child.js
>>>>>> C
>>>>>> pgadmin/browser/server_groups/servers/databases/schemas/static/js/schema_child_tree_node.js
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It makes sense to remove duplication by extracting these attributes
>>>>>> out and setting the canDrop and canCreate functions here. But is it
>>>>>> possible to combine these two files into one since they are related so we
>>>>>> don’t need to import schema_child_tree_node?
>>>>>>
>>>>> That was the original plan, but 'pgadmin/browser/static/js//node.js'
>>>> script has too many dependecies, which are not easily portable.
>>>> And - that may lead to change the scope of the patch.
>>>>
>>>> Hence - I decided to use the separate file to make sure we have enough
>>>> test coverage (which is more imprortant than changing the scope).
>>>>
>>>>> M pgadmin/static/js/tree/tree.js
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The creation of the ancestorNode function feels like a
>>>>>> pre-optimization. That function is not used any where outside of the
>>>>>> tree.js file, so it’s more confusing to have it defined.
>>>>>>
>>>>> It is being used in the latest changes. :-)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On a lighter note, could we avoid the !! syntax when possible? For
>>>>>> example, instead of return !!obj, we could do something like return
>>>>>> obj === undefined or return _.isUndefined(obj) as this is more
>>>>>> intuitive.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/a/80092
>>>>>>
>>>>> I am kind of disagree here. But - I have changed it anyway.
>>>>
>>>>> In addition, please update this patch as it is out of sync with the
>>>>>> latest commit on the master branch. Otherwise, everything looks good!
>>>>>>
>>>>> Here - you go!
>>>>
>>>> -- Thanks, Ashesh
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>> Anthony && Victoria
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 7:52 AM Ashesh Vashi <
>>>>>> ashesh.va...@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 8:13 PM, Joao De Almeida Pereira <
>>>>>>> jdealmeidapere...@pivotal.io> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hey, Thanks so much for the reply.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> We've noticed that you've made several modifications on top of our
>>>>>>>> original patch. Unfortunately, we've found it very hard to follow.
>>>>>>>> Could we
>>>>>>>> please get a brief synopsis of the changes you have made - just so we
>>>>>>>> can
>>>>>>>> better understand the rationale behind them? Just like we've done for
>>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>>> previously.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Please find the changes from your original patch:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> M webpack.shim.js
>>>>>>> M webpack.test.config.js
>>>>>>> - In order to specify the fake_browser in regression tests, we need to
>>>>>>> use 'pgbrowser/browser' in the 'schema_child_tree_node.js' script.D
>>>>>>> pgadmin/browser/server_groups/servers/databases/schemas/static/js/can_drop_child.js
>>>>>>> - We don't need this with the new implementation.C
>>>>>>> pgadmin/browser/server_groups/servers/databases/schemas/static/js/child.js
>>>>>>> - All the children of schema node have common properties as
>>>>>>> 'parent_type', 'canDrop', 'canDropCascase', 'canCreate'.
>>>>>>> Hence - instead of defining them in each node, we have created a base
>>>>>>> node, which will have all these properties.
>>>>>>> And, modified all schema children node to inherit from it.C
>>>>>>> pgadmin/browser/server_groups/servers/databases/schemas/static/js/schema_child_tree_node.js
>>>>>>> - In this script, we're defining three functions
>>>>>>> 'childCreateMenuEnabled', 'isTreeItemOfChildOfSchema', &
>>>>>>> 'isTreeNodeOfSchemaChild', which are used by the 'SchemaChildNode'
>>>>>>> objects.M pgadmin/browser/static/js/collection.js
>>>>>>> - Fixed an issue related to wrongly defined 'error' function for the
>>>>>>> Collection object.D pgadmin/static/js/menu/can_create.js
>>>>>>> - It defined the function, which was defining a check for creation of a
>>>>>>> schema child node, or not by looking at the parent node (i.e. a
>>>>>>> schema/catalog node).
>>>>>>> The file was not defintely placed under the wrong directory, because
>>>>>>> - the similar logic was under 'can_drop_child.js', and it was defined
>>>>>>> under
>>>>>>> 'pgadmin/browser/server_groups/servers/databases/schemas/static/js'
>>>>>>> directory.D pgadmin/static/js/menu/menu_enabled.jsC
>>>>>>> pgadmin/static/js/nodes/supported_database_node.js
>>>>>>> - Used by the external tools for checking whether the 'selected'
>>>>>>> tree-node is:
>>>>>>> + 'database' node, and it is allowed to connect it.
>>>>>>> + Or, it is one of the schema child (and, not 'catalog' child).
>>>>>>> - Finding the correct location was difficult for this, as there is no
>>>>>>> defined pattern, also it can be used by other functions too. Hence -
>>>>>>> moved it out of 'pgadmin/static/js/menu' directory.M
>>>>>>> pgadmin/static/js/tree/tree.js
>>>>>>> - Introduced a function, which returns the ancestor node object, fow
>>>>>>> which the condition is true.D
>>>>>>> regression/javascript/menu/can_create_spec.js
>>>>>>> D regression/javascript/menu/menu_enabled_spec.js
>>>>>>> D regression/javascript/schema/can_drop_child_spec.jsC
>>>>>>> regression/javascript/fake_browser/browser.js
>>>>>>> C regression/javascript/nodes/schema/child_menu_spec.js
>>>>>>> - Modified the regression to test the new functionalies.M
>>>>>>> pgadmin/browser/server_groups/servers/databases/schemas/**/*.js
>>>>>>> - Extending the schema child nodes from the 'SchemaChildNode' class
>>>>>>> defined in 'pgadmin/.../schemas/static/js/child.js' script.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Let me know if you need more information.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Let's keep in mind that the original intent was simply to introduce
>>>>>>>> this abstraction into the code base, which is a big enough task. I'd
>>>>>>>> hate
>>>>>>>> for the scope of the changes we're making to expand beyond that.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I have the mutual feeling.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -- Thanks, Ashesh
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>>>> Joao && Anthony
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 2:59 AM Ashesh Vashi <
>>>>>>>> ashesh.va...@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Sorry for the late reply.
>>>>>>>>> On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 8:55 PM, Anthony Emengo <
>>>>>>>>> aeme...@pivotal.io> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> export function canCreate(pgBrowser, childOfCatalogType) {
>>>>>>>>>> return canCreateObject.bind({
>>>>>>>>>> browser: pgBrowser,
>>>>>>>>>> childOfCatalogType: childOfCatalogType,
>>>>>>>>>> });
>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> With respect to the above code: this bind pattern looks good and
>>>>>>>>>> seems like the idiomatic way to handle this in JavaScript. On a
>>>>>>>>>> lighter
>>>>>>>>>> node, I don’t even see the need for an additional method to wrap it.
>>>>>>>>>> The
>>>>>>>>>> invocation could have easily been like canCreate:
>>>>>>>>>> canCreateObject.bind({ browser: pgBrowser, childOfCatalogType:
>>>>>>>>>> childOfCatalogType }), I don’t feel too strongly here.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I do agree - we can handle the same problem many ways.
>>>>>>>>> I prefer object oriented pardigm more in general.
>>>>>>>>> Any way - I have modified the code with some other changes.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I renamed it as isValidTreeNodeData, because - we were using it
>>>>>>>>>> in for testing the tree data. Please suggest me the right place, and
>>>>>>>>>> name.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> We’re not sure; maybe after continued refactoring, we will come
>>>>>>>>>> across more generic functions. At that point we can revisit this and
>>>>>>>>>> create
>>>>>>>>>> a utils.js file.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Sure.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The original patch was separating them in different places, but -
>>>>>>>>>> still uses some of the functionalities directly from the tree, which
>>>>>>>>>> was
>>>>>>>>>> happening because we have contextual menu.
>>>>>>>>>> To give a better solution, I can think of putting the menus
>>>>>>>>>> related code understand ‘sources/tree/menu’ directory.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> We’re particularly worried because we’re trying to avoid the
>>>>>>>>>> coupling that we see in the code base today. We want to decouple
>>>>>>>>>> *application
>>>>>>>>>> state* from *business domain* logic as much as we can - because
>>>>>>>>>> this makes the code much easier to understand. We achieve lower
>>>>>>>>>> coupling by
>>>>>>>>>> have more suitable interfaces to retrieve *application state*
>>>>>>>>>> like: anyParent (the menu doesn’t care how this happens). This
>>>>>>>>>> is the direction that we’re trying to move towards, we just don’t
>>>>>>>>>> want the
>>>>>>>>>> package structure to undermine that developer intent.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I realized after revisiting the code, menu/can_create.js was only
>>>>>>>>> applicable to the children of the schema/catalog nodes, same as
>>>>>>>>> 'can_drop_child'.
>>>>>>>>> We should have put both scripts in the same directory.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Please find the updated patch for the same.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Please review it, and let me know your concerns.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> -- Thanks, Ashesh
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> How about nodeMenu.isSupportedNode(…)?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Naming is one of the hardest problems in programming. I don’t
>>>>>>>>>> feel too strongly about this one. For now, let’s keep it as is
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>>>>>> Anthony && Victoria
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>
