Re: Regarding issue 1241

From: Ashesh Vashi <ashesh(dot)vashi(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
To: Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org>
Cc: Harshal Dhumal <harshal(dot)dhumal(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgadmin-hackers <pgadmin-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Regarding issue 1241
Date: 2016-06-15 12:49:12
Message-ID: CAG7mmow9Ho3b6WeOn0j1iyvs94t8FdaYk8emiwrceg_Sd9-nQA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgadmin-hackers

On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 1:59 PM, Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org> wrote:

>
>
> On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 8:53 PM, Harshal Dhumal <
> harshal(dot)dhumal(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
>
>> Hi Dave,
>>
>> Regarding Issue 1241 <https://redmine.postgresql.org/issues/1241>:
>>
>> We have added header section for parameter tab deliberately so that we
>> can force user to select parameter name (and therefore parameter's data
>> type) before adding new row. This is required because behavior of second
>> cell (Value cell) is dependent on what parameter name user has selected in
>> first cell (Name cell). See attached screen-shot.
>>
>> For example:
>> 1. If user selects parameter 'array_nulls' then value for this should be
>> either true or false (and hence switch cell).
>> 2. If user selects parameter 'cpu_index_tuple_cost' then value for this
>> should be Integer (and hence Integer cell).
>>
>> Without the custom header (and forcing user to select parameter) we
>> cannot decide what type of cell we need in second column.
>>
>> Let me know your opinion on this.
>>
>
> We need to figure out a way to fix it. Our difficulties encountered
> writing code should not dictate usability compromises.
>
In this case, something that needs some thought and maybe some tricky code
> has caused us to create an inconsistent UI workflow to side-step the
> problem, which is not appropriate as it leads to a poor look and feel and
> potentially confusion for the user.
>
Agree - we should handle these cases gracefully.
We need to over come the limitation by brain storming, which we already
started offline. :-)

To be honest - it is a time consuming work, and there is no quick fix for
this.
We can handle it as one case for each change instead of targeting all UI
changes as one whole problem.
And, we can utilize the same time to fix a lot more cases in beta 2.

I can ask Harshal to find out all possible places, where the similar
changes are required, and create a separate case for each (though - not
without your agreement).

--
Thanks & Regards,
Ashesh Vashi

>
>
> --
> Dave Page
> Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com
> Twitter: @pgsnake
>
> EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
> The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
>
>

In response to

Responses

Browse pgadmin-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Dave Page 2016-06-15 12:55:27 Re: Regarding issue 1241
Previous Message Dave Page 2016-06-15 12:24:55 Re: Fixed RM #1356