Re: [pgAdmin4][Patch]: Fixed RM #2315 : Sorting by size is broken

Hi Khushboo!

Thanks for your reply!

> *SQL Files:*
>>
>> - Is there a way to avoid conditionals here?
>>
>>
>> - Maybe we can use the same javascript function to prettify all the
>> sizes
>>
>>
>> In case of collection node (ex: Databases), I have implemented this
>> functionality via putting a formatter for a back-grid column. So, it is
>> applicable for the entire column not for the individual cell. To apply the
>> javascript function on a single cell for the column (string column), first
>> we need to identify that cell and then apply the function, I think this is
>> overhead. Just to avoid conditional sql template I would not prefer this
>> approach.
>
>
We are not totally sure we understood what you meant on the previous
statement. Are you saying that the conditionals in SQL are used to ensure
that we can apply a javascript function at column level instead of cell
level?

Our concern is that the templates are being made more complex and
inconsistencies are introduced in the code and the UI. In this particular
example, we are allowing the backend to respond sometimes with prettified
data and sometimes without it, so at UI level we will have inconsistencies
between screens or more complex Javascript code to support sometimes
prettifying and sometimes not prettify the same fields.

What we were thinking was to maybe not specify on the SQL level and have
the same format for "Size" everywhere in the UI.

Thanks
Joao & Sarah

On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 11:48 PM, Khushboo Vashi <
khushboo(dot)vashi(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:

> Hi Joao & Sarah,
>
> Thanks for reviewing the patch.
>
> On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 8:34 PM, Joao Pedro De Almeida Pereira <
> jdealmeidapereira(at)pivotal(dot)io> wrote:
>
>> Hello Khushboo,
>>
>> We reviewed the this patch and have some suggestions:
>>
>> *Python:*
>> ​
>> The functionality for adding the "can_prettify" is repeated in multiple
>> places. Maybe this could be extracted into a function.
>>
>> When I have implemented this, my first thought is exactly same as you
> suggested but while looking at the code I felt its not a good idea to have
> a function. In case of a function, we need to pass the whole result-set as
> well as the list of fields which we need to be prettified. So, only for 2
> lines, I didn't find any reason to make a function.
>
>> *Javascript:*
>> ​
>>
>> - The class Backgrid.SizeFormatter doesn't seem to have any tests.
>>
>>
>> Sure, will do.
>
>>
>> - The function pg_size_pretty displays bytes and Kilobytes
>> differently.
>> - Is it possible to add PB as well?
>>
>> Will check and add PB.
>
>>
>> -
>> - The function is a little bit hard to read, is it possible to
>> refactor using private functions like:
>>
>> Will make it more readable.
>
>> fromRaw: function (rawData, model) {
>> var unitIdx = findDataUnitIndex(rawData);
>> if (unitIdx == 0) {
>> return rawData + ' ' + this.dataUnits[i];
>> }
>> return formatOutput(rawData, unitIdx);
>> },
>>
>> ​
>>
>>
>> - In statistics.js:326 we believe it would make the code more
>> readable if we change the variable "c" to "rawColumn" and "col" to "column".
>>
>>
>> I will change the variable name from "c" to "rawColumn" but I think
> "col" is appropriate as we already have columns variable and anyone can
> confuse while reading the code (for columns and column).
>
>>
>> *SQL Files:*
>> ​
>>
>> - Is there a way to avoid conditionals here?
>> - Maybe we can use the same javascript function to prettify all the
>> sizes
>>
>>
>> In case of collection node (ex: Databases), I have implemented this
> functionality via putting a formatter for a back-grid column. So, it is
> applicable for the entire column not for the individual cell. To apply the
> javascript function on a single cell for the column (string column), first
> we need to identify that cell and then apply the function, I think this is
> overhead. Just to avoid conditional sql template I would not prefer this
> approach.
>
>>
>> Visually we saw a difference between "Databases" statistics and a
>> specific database statistics. In "Databases" statistics the "Size" is "7.4
>> MB" but when you are in the specific database the "Size" is "7420 kB".
>> Is this the intended behavior?
>>
>> Only for the Databases (collection node), the client side functionality
> is implemented not for individual node , so this behaviour is different.
> For the individual node still, we are using pg_size_pretty function
>
>>
>>
>
>> Thanks
>> Joao & Sarah
>>
>> On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 7:58 AM, Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org> wrote:
>>
>>> Ashesh, can you review/commit this please?
>>>
>>> Thanks.
>>>
>>> On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 10:18 AM, Khushboo Vashi <
>>> khushboo(dot)vashi(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> Fixed RM #2315 : Sorting by size is broken.
>>>>
>>>> Removed the pg_size_pretty function from query for the collection and
>>>> introduced the client side function to convert size into human readable
>>>> format. So, the sorting issue is fixed as the algorithm will get the actual
>>>> value of size instead of formatted value.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Khushboo
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Sent via pgadmin-hackers mailing list (pgadmin-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org)
>>>> To make changes to your subscription:
>>>> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgadmin-hackers
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Dave Page
>>> Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com
>>> Twitter: @pgsnake
>>>
>>> EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
>>> The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
>>>
>>
>>
> Thanks,
> Khushboo
>