Re: Docker build simplification
Hi Dave I have installed docker, applied your patch and run "*docker build .*". Image has been created without REPOSITORY and TAG is this OK. [image: Screenshot 2019-09-13 at 12.22.57 PM.png] Rest I have tested it works fine. On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 4:44 PM Dave Page wrote: > > > On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 6:59 AM Ashesh Vashi < > ashesh.va...@enterprisedb.com> wrote: > >> On Tue, Sep 10, 2019 at 11:21 PM Dave Page wrote: >> >>> The attached patch simplifies the Docker container build so that it can >>> be done entirely using "docker build" in the root of a source tree. It also >>> enables building the container from a tarball, not just a git checkout. >>> This does mean that container builds may now also include any garbage in >>> the source tree from which they're built, but conversely offers the benefit >>> of making it easy to build a container with code changes in it without >>> having to commit first. >>> >>> Akshay, can you look it over to make sure I haven't done anything >>> obviously stupid? Feedback from others is also welcome of course. >>> >> Dave, >> >> Is there any reason - we're not using the requirements.txt from the >> docker file, and installing the packages separately. >> > > I'm not sure what you mean. It installs Python dependencies in two places; > > - In the documentation builder intermediate container. This doesn't use > requirements.txt, and installs just the bare minimum required to install > the docs. > > - In the final container. This does use requirements.txt. > > I suppose there's a minor simplification that can be made to the way I'm > installing the requirements.txt file itself. At the moment it gets copied > to the app builder, and then from there to the final container. I don't > think it's actually needed in the app builder so I could just copy it from > the host straight into the final container. > > Or did you mean something else? > > -- > Dave Page > Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com > Twitter: @pgsnake > > EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com > The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company > -- *Thanks & Regards* *Akshay Joshi* *Sr. Software Architect* *EnterpriseDB Software India Private Limited* *Mobile: +91 976-788-8246*
Re: [pgAdmin][RM4642] port should not be mandatory when a service is provided
Hi, We are making assumption here that all user's service file has port & username inside them. What if they are not present? If I remember correctly those validation were left intentional when we added service field just to make sure that we connect to DB server from pgAdmin4 regardless of those information present in service file. -- Regards, Murtuza Zabuawala EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 12:09 PM Aditya Toshniwal < aditya.toshni...@enterprisedb.com> wrote: > Looks good to me. > > On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 8:05 AM Akshay Joshi < > akshay.jo...@enterprisedb.com> wrote: > >> Can someone please review this. >> >> On Mon, 9 Sep, 2019, 18:06 Akshay Joshi, >> wrote: >> >>> Hi Hackers, >>> >>> Attached is the patch to fix the RM #4642 "port should not be mandatory >>> when a service is provided". *Cyril Jouve* has sent the initial patch, >>> but that only removes the validation on GUI, when we save the server >>> properties without port and username backend throws an error because port >>> and username is *NOT NULL* columns in the server table in SQLite. >>> >>> I have removed the *NOT NULL *constraint from the port and username. >>> The maintenance database is required as our whole connection logic is based >>> on that, so I have added the NOT NULL constraint for that column. >>> >>> Please review it. >>> >>> -- >>> *Thanks & Regards* >>> *Akshay Joshi* >>> >>> *Sr. Software Architect* >>> *EnterpriseDB Software India Private Limited* >>> *Mobile: +91 976-788-8246* >>> >> > > -- > Thanks and Regards, > Aditya Toshniwal > Software Engineer | EnterpriseDB India | Pune > "Don't Complain about Heat, Plant a TREE" >
Re: [pgAdmin][RM4642] port should not be mandatory when a service is provided
Hi Murtuza On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 1:40 PM Murtuza Zabuawala < murtuza.zabuaw...@enterprisedb.com> wrote: > Hi, > > We are making assumption here that all user's service file has port & > username inside them. > What if they are not present? > 5432 is the default port and the system user is the default user to connect. If port and username are not provided in the service file then the user can specify that in the dialog itself. > > If I remember correctly those validation were left intentional when we > added service field just to make sure that we connect to DB server from > pgAdmin4 regardless of those information present in service file. > I personally think that behaviour is wrong if my service file has the correct port number then why should the user enter all those information again, and what if the user provides the wrong port number from server dialog, it trys to connect to the wrong port. One small suggestion such comments should come early as I have sent the patch 4 days ago not after the patch has been committed. > > > -- > Regards, > Murtuza Zabuawala > EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com > The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company > > > > On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 12:09 PM Aditya Toshniwal < > aditya.toshni...@enterprisedb.com> wrote: > >> Looks good to me. >> >> On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 8:05 AM Akshay Joshi < >> akshay.jo...@enterprisedb.com> wrote: >> >>> Can someone please review this. >>> >>> On Mon, 9 Sep, 2019, 18:06 Akshay Joshi, >>> wrote: >>> Hi Hackers, Attached is the patch to fix the RM #4642 "port should not be mandatory when a service is provided". *Cyril Jouve* has sent the initial patch, but that only removes the validation on GUI, when we save the server properties without port and username backend throws an error because port and username is *NOT NULL* columns in the server table in SQLite. I have removed the *NOT NULL *constraint from the port and username. The maintenance database is required as our whole connection logic is based on that, so I have added the NOT NULL constraint for that column. Please review it. -- *Thanks & Regards* *Akshay Joshi* *Sr. Software Architect* *EnterpriseDB Software India Private Limited* *Mobile: +91 976-788-8246* >>> >> >> -- >> Thanks and Regards, >> Aditya Toshniwal >> Software Engineer | EnterpriseDB India | Pune >> "Don't Complain about Heat, Plant a TREE" >> > -- *Thanks & Regards* *Akshay Joshi* *Sr. Software Architect* *EnterpriseDB Software India Private Limited* *Mobile: +91 976-788-8246*
[pgAdmin4][Patch] - RM 4742 - Can not create Primary key with Index & 4624 - RE-SQL/MSQL test cases for Primary Keys
Hi, Please find the attached patch to fix below RMs. 1. #4742 - Primary Key Dialog: Can not create Primary key with Index 2. #4624 - Add RE-SQL/MSQL test cases for Primary Keys Thanks, Khushboo RM_4624_4742.patch Description: Binary data
Re: [pgAdmin][RM4642] port should not be mandatory when a service is provided
Hi, On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 2:32 PM Akshay Joshi wrote: > Hi Murtuza > > On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 1:40 PM Murtuza Zabuawala < > murtuza.zabuaw...@enterprisedb.com> wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> We are making assumption here that all user's service file has port & >> username inside them. >> What if they are not present? >> > > 5432 is the default port and the system user is the default user to > connect. > Despite default values we had frontend validation on those fields from the beginning [Not specific to service file but in general]. > If port and username are not provided in the service file then the user > can specify that in the dialog itself. > I know user can provide in the dialog itself but we are not validating that service file contains port and/or username information in it & still we allow to save the server, I think if we are removing the validation from frontend then we should verify it in the backend if the service file contains required fields or not and throw an error before saving the server. > >> If I remember correctly those validation were left intentional when we >> added service field just to make sure that we connect to DB server from >> pgAdmin4 regardless of those information present in service file. >> > > I personally think that behaviour is wrong if my service file has the > correct port number then why should the user enter all those information > again, and what if the user provides the wrong port number from server > dialog, it trys to connect to the wrong port. > > One small suggestion such comments should come early as I have sent > the patch 4 days ago not after the patch has been committed. > Sorry I missed the earlier email, I only saw today morning with your reminder email. Regards, Murtuza > >> >> -- >> Regards, >> Murtuza Zabuawala >> EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com >> The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company >> >> >> >> On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 12:09 PM Aditya Toshniwal < >> aditya.toshni...@enterprisedb.com> wrote: >> >>> Looks good to me. >>> >>> On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 8:05 AM Akshay Joshi < >>> akshay.jo...@enterprisedb.com> wrote: >>> Can someone please review this. On Mon, 9 Sep, 2019, 18:06 Akshay Joshi, wrote: > Hi Hackers, > > Attached is the patch to fix the RM #4642 "port should not be > mandatory when a service is provided". *Cyril Jouve* has sent the > initial patch, but that only removes the validation on GUI, when we save > the server properties without port and username backend throws an error > because port and username is *NOT NULL* columns in the server table > in SQLite. > > I have removed the *NOT NULL *constraint from the port and username. > The maintenance database is required as our whole connection logic is > based > on that, so I have added the NOT NULL constraint for that column. > > Please review it. > > -- > *Thanks & Regards* > *Akshay Joshi* > > *Sr. Software Architect* > *EnterpriseDB Software India Private Limited* > *Mobile: +91 976-788-8246* > >>> >>> -- >>> Thanks and Regards, >>> Aditya Toshniwal >>> Software Engineer | EnterpriseDB India | Pune >>> "Don't Complain about Heat, Plant a TREE" >>> >> > > -- > *Thanks & Regards* > *Akshay Joshi* > > *Sr. Software Architect* > *EnterpriseDB Software India Private Limited* > *Mobile: +91 976-788-8246* >
pgAdmin 4 commit: Fix issue where EXEC script doesn't write the complet
Fix issue where EXEC script doesn't write the complete script for Procedures. Fixes #4727 Branch -- master Details --- https://git.postgresql.org/gitweb?p=pgadmin4.git;a=commitdiff;h=f5a6df4ddba98fe58e8c08fdbcbf54a1182f0996 Modified Files -- docs/en_US/release_notes_4_13.rst | 1 + .../schemas/functions/templates/procedures/pg/sql/11_plus/node.sql | 2 +- .../functions/templates/procedures/pg/sql/11_plus/properties.sql| 2 +- .../schemas/functions/templates/procedures/ppas/sql/11_plus/node.sql| 2 +- .../functions/templates/procedures/ppas/sql/11_plus/properties.sql | 2 +- .../schemas/functions/templates/procedures/ppas/sql/default/node.sql| 2 +- .../functions/templates/procedures/ppas/sql/default/properties.sql | 2 +- 7 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
Re: [pgAdmin4][Patch] - RM 4742 - Can not create Primary key with Index & 4624 - RE-SQL/MSQL test cases for Primary Keys
Hi Khushboo Following are my review comments: - Test cases failed on every server. - Delete table scenario is missing in check_constraints and index_constraints. - Scenario "Primary Key Constraint with Index" is missing in the 11_plus folder, it is available in the default folder. - Found one issue when we remove fill factor no MSQL is generated and got the error "can't execute an empty query". - Index is not visible in the properties dialog when we create primary key using index. On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 2:41 PM Khushboo Vashi < khushboo.va...@enterprisedb.com> wrote: > Hi, > > Please find the attached patch to fix below RMs. > > 1. #4742 - Primary Key Dialog: Can not create Primary key with Index > 2. #4624 - Add RE-SQL/MSQL test cases for Primary Keys > > Thanks, > Khushboo > -- *Thanks & Regards* *Akshay Joshi* *Sr. Software Architect* *EnterpriseDB Software India Private Limited* *Mobile: +91 976-788-8246*
pgAdmin 4 commit: Update message catalogs.
Update message catalogs. Branch -- master Details --- https://git.postgresql.org/gitweb?p=pgadmin4.git;a=commitdiff;h=2acd2a56150fa287b015e2eb431e51171a4f518b Modified Files -- web/pgadmin/messages.pot | 862 +++ .../translations/de/LC_MESSAGES/messages.mo| Bin 153699 -> 154873 bytes .../translations/de/LC_MESSAGES/messages.po| 897 .../translations/es/LC_MESSAGES/messages.mo| Bin 158328 -> 159502 bytes .../translations/es/LC_MESSAGES/messages.po| 905 .../translations/fr/LC_MESSAGES/messages.mo| Bin 163480 -> 164639 bytes .../translations/fr/LC_MESSAGES/messages.po| 909 .../translations/it/LC_MESSAGES/messages.mo| Bin 168235 -> 160817 bytes .../translations/it/LC_MESSAGES/messages.po| 2426 +--- .../translations/ja/LC_MESSAGES/messages.mo| Bin 170992 -> 171772 bytes .../translations/ja/LC_MESSAGES/messages.po| 951 .../translations/ko/LC_MESSAGES/messages.mo| Bin 155989 -> 157163 bytes .../translations/ko/LC_MESSAGES/messages.po| 897 .../translations/pl/LC_MESSAGES/messages.mo| Bin 153726 -> 154900 bytes .../translations/pl/LC_MESSAGES/messages.po| 897 .../translations/ru/LC_MESSAGES/messages.mo| Bin 189809 -> 190983 bytes .../translations/ru/LC_MESSAGES/messages.po| 897 .../translations/zh/LC_MESSAGES/messages.mo| Bin 141807 -> 142985 bytes .../translations/zh/LC_MESSAGES/messages.po| 897 19 files changed, 5909 insertions(+), 4629 deletions(-)
Translators: Release next week
Hi Translators, We will have a release next week, so updates to translations prior to release would be helpful. The template and catalogs have been updated in git. -- *Thanks & Regards* *Akshay Joshi* *Sr. Software Architect* *EnterpriseDB Software India Private Limited* *Mobile: +91 976-788-8246*
Japanese translation (September 2019 - 2)
Hello. Updated translation for upcoming version 4.13 is in attachment. messages.pot was taken from git 2acd2a56. pgadmin4-ja-sep2019-2.7z Description: Binary data
