Re: patch for cast module

That's much better. Just a couple of comments now, partly based on an email
I wrote earlier:

- There is still inconsistency in comment style. Please see the attachment
for an example. Note that there is *always* a space between the comment
marker and text.

- If I try to edit a cast, I can change the description - but no SQL is
shown on the SQL tab, despite the comment being correctly applied when I
hit save. The properties pane of the main window is also not updated.

Otherwise, it looks fine.

Thanks.

On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 1:28 PM, Sanket Mehta <sanket(dot)mehta(at)enterprisedb(dot)com
> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> PFA the revised patch with all the required comments.
>
>
>
> Regards,
> Sanket Mehta
> Sr Software engineer
> Enterprisedb
>
> On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 4:18 PM, Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 8:10 AM, Sanket Mehta <
>> sanket(dot)mehta(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Dave,
>>>
>>> Regarding your suggestion of putting some comments in javascript, I
>>> think I have already put some comments regarding model data and their
>>> controls if any extended.
>>>
>>> Can you please let me know where exactly you think more comments are
>>> required?
>>>
>>
>> Hi
>>
>> The issue for me is that jQuery code isn't the easiest to read at the
>> best of times, with nested/anonymous functions and inline JSON etc. As I
>> look through the code for the various nodes in isolation, it's extremely
>> difficult to get a sense of what exactly each part of the code is doing. In
>> this example, what I see by reading the code is:
>>
>> - Define the required libraries (require.js stuff)
>> - Extend the collection class
>> - Extend the node class
>> - Define an init function inline
>> - Add the menu options
>>
>> That part is fairly easy to figure out (easier because there are blank
>> lines between the logical sections). From there though, it becomes much
>> harder;
>>
>> - There are no blank lines to separate logical code sections at all
>> between line 48 and 235 (there is one blank line, but it doesn't separate
>> code sections).
>> - There are 4 comments that I can see. The first two are identical, and
>> appear to have identical code blocks following them for reasons that are
>> not even remotely obvious.
>> - As a newcomer to this code, I'm wondering if it's purpose is to define
>> the backform model. If so, why is it not broken up into sections with a
>> comment to tell me what field each block handles, and any other useful
>> information I may need to know? If it's not, then what is it for?
>>
>> So... I'm not going to tell you exactly where to put comments, because
>> the point is that without spending a couple of hours understanding this, I
>> simply don't know. The point of the comments (and separation of logical
>> sections of code with blank lines) is to make it easy for another developer
>> (especially one as rusty as me) to read and understand, then fix and
>> improve. Be generous with comments, but don't use them unnecessarily (e.g.
>> "a = 1 // Set a to one").
>>
>> Of course, this is not just directed at you Sanket - it's something all
>> of us working on pgAdmin need to keep in mind.
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> --
>> 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