Re: Feature matrix filter

On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 4:31 PM, Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)com> wrote:

> On 13 March 2014 15:29, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 4:17 PM, Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)com> wrote:
> >>
> >> On 13 March 2014 15:04, Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org> wrote:
> >> > On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 11:45 PM, Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)com> wrote:
> >> >> On 30 May 2013 23:12, Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)com> wrote:
> >> >>> On 30 May 2013 11:33, Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org> wrote:
> >> >>>> On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 10:09 PM, Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)com>
> wrote:
> >> >>>>> That should be the case with the "hide unchanged features"
> checkbox
> >> >>>>> checked anyway. The rule is, if it's the same value across all
> >> >>>>> displayed versions (regardless of whether they're all "Yes", "No"
> or
> >> >>>>> "Obsolete"), the row becomes hidden.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> Yeah, I get that. I'm just suggesting that obsolete features should
> >> >>>> be
> >> >>>> treated differently, as they're even less interesting than
> something
> >> >>>> that was implemented before the first version show.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Well it still seems like an unnecessary complication of yet another
> >> >>> checkbox for the sake of 6 affected features. I could add it if you
> >> >>> really want it. The rule would be that if any of the displayed
> >> >>> versions for a particular feature contain "Obsolete" then the row is
> >> >>> hidden.
> >> >>>
> >> >>>> Regardless of that, I do think that checkbox should be on it's own
> >> >>>> line. And everything centred to look tidier.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Latest version does that.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> And while we're doing this, would we want to add 7.4 back in? It's
> in
> >> >>> the database anyway, or is it just too old?
> >> >>
> >> >> So, with 9.4 coming up later this year, the feature matrix will be
> >> >> overflowing many screens.
> >> >>
> >> >> I've rebased the old patch and also included jQuery rather than
> >> >> referring to a Google-hosted copy.
> >> >
> >> > Works for me :-)
> >>
> >> Any objections to me committing this?
> >
> >
> > I haven't tested it yet (the new version), but a few quick comments
> based on
> > looking at it:
>
> Argh... just as I pushed it out.
>

No better time to fix it than now :D

> We have other parts of the site already using jquery, please make sure
> we're
> > consitent in how we load it (currently we use a CDN - but we should use
> > either one, whichever it is, not both)
>
> Okay, I can switch it back to the CDN if you prefer.
>

Either that, or change the existing usage to use an embedded one. But I
think in general people tend to say that using a CDN is a good idea for
this.

> You have hardcoded the EOL versions in the javascript, that won't do, that
> > has to come from the db.
>
> Okay, I'll investigate.
>

Should be easy enough to get in there, of course, just through a template
variable.

> Does it (reasonably) gracefully degrade if the browser has no javascript
> > (browser running with noscript)? Doesnt have to be great, but has to not
> > break completely.
>
> Users with Javascript disabled should not notice any difference.

Excellent.

--
Magnus Hagander
Me: http://www.hagander.net/
Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/