Re: [pgadmin4][patch] Initial patch to decouple from ACI Tree

Hi Joao,

On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 8:33 PM, Joao De Almeida Pereira <
jdealmeidapereira(at)pivotal(dot)io> wrote:

> Hello Ashesh,
>
> These are our comments to the patch:
>
>
> -
>
> Can you explain the reasoning behind the change you did on the
> canCreate function?
>
> I do agree as Akshay mentioned ealier, canCreate.canCreate does not look
right to me too, and neither directory structure, nor name of the script
does not make sense to me.
As those functions are always going to apply on the tree nodes only, moved
them under the 'sources/tree' directory, and renamed it as 'node_menu'.

>
> -
>
> Bind creates a new instance of a function, do we really need that?
>
> If you look at the original proposed patch, the implementation looks like
this.

*canCreate: function(itemData, item, data) {*
* return canCreate.canCreate(pgBrowser, <collection_node_type>, item,
data);*
*}*

Here - we're already creating an anonymous function, which is an object
under the hood.
And - for every tree node, they will be a separate anonymous function
anyway.

Why not use better object oriented approach?

>
> -
>
> isValidTreeNodeData
> 1. If it is not Null or Undefined it really means that the data is
> Valid? Shouldn’t it be isDataDefined?
> 2. This looks like a generic function that could be used with
> objects of any type not specific to TreeNodeData. So the file location
> doesn’t look correct.
>
> I renamed it as isValidTreeNodeData, because - we were using it in for
testing the tree data.
I do agree - it is a generic function that could be used with objects of
any type.

But - when I moved the code, the function name was
'isProvidedDataValid(...)', which was present in
'sources/menu/menu_enabled' file, which was definitely not right place. :-)
Please suggest me the right place, and name.

>
> - The tree folder is just a Tree that we use to store information. The
> menu uses a Tree but the 2 things should be separated.
>
> I think - you're missing the point.

Here - we're dealing with two types of menus:
1. Contextual menu (which will always depend on the current selected tree
node)
2. Normal menus

>
> -
>
> In our point of view the current entanglement of the ACITree into our
> code came from missing concepts into a single place (Menu + Storage of
> information).
> The idea behind having the Tree as a separate block was to ensure that
> we do not have the Menu and Tree coupling.
>
> In my opinion - keeping them in them in different directories/files does
not make them decoupled to be honest.

The original patch was separating them in different places, but - still
uses some of the functionalities directly from the tree, which was
happening because we have contextual menu.
To give a better solution, I can think of putting the menus related code
understand 'sources/tree/menu' directory.
That will give clear distiguation between actual tree, and dependent code.

What do you say?

>
> -
>
> supportedNodesMenu.enabled what it does it check if a Node Menu should
> be enabled or not. The name of it maybe should be nodeMenu.enabled?
>
> nodeMenu.enabled(...) looks to general to me.
How about nodeMenu.isSupportedNode(...)?

If you look at the implementation of the function, it checks for the
current tree node is one of the supported nodes, or not.

-- Thanks, Ashesh

> ​
>
>
> Thanks
> Victoria & Joao
>
> On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 6:37 AM Ashesh Vashi <
> ashesh(dot)vashi(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
>
>> Hi Joao,
>> On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 6:11 PM, Ashesh Vashi <
>> ashesh(dot)vashi(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 6:10 PM, Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 1:38 PM, Ashesh Vashi <
>>>> ashesh(dot)vashi(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 2:59 PM, Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sat, May 12, 2018 at 12:10 AM, Ashesh Vashi <
>>>>>> ashesh(dot)vashi(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Sat, May 12, 2018, 02:58 Joao De Almeida Pereira <
>>>>>>> jdealmeidapereira(at)pivotal(dot)io> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hello Ashesh,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 1. In TreeNode, we're keepging the reference of DOMElement, do we
>>>>>>>>>> really need it?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> As of right now, our Tree abstraction acts as an adapter to the
>>>>>>>>>> aciTree library. The aciTree library needs the domElement for most of its
>>>>>>>>>> functions (setInode, unload, etc). Thus this is the easiest way to
>>>>>>>>>> introduce our abstraction and keep the functionality as before - at least
>>>>>>>>>> until we decide that whether we want to switch out the library or not.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I understand that. But - I've not seen any reference of domElement
>>>>>>>>> the code yet, hence - pointed that out.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If you look at the function: reload, unload you will see that
>>>>>>>> domNode is used to communicate with the ACITree
>>>>>>>> ​
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 2. Are you expecting the tree class to be a singleton class
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Since this tree is referenced throughout the codebase, considering
>>>>>>>>>> it to be a singleton seems like the most appropriate pattern for this
>>>>>>>>>> usecase. It is very much the same way how we create a single instance of
>>>>>>>>>> the aciTree library and use that throughout the codebase. Moreover, it
>>>>>>>>>> opens up opportunities to improve performance, for example caching lockups
>>>>>>>>>> of nodes. I’m not a fan of singletons myself, but I feel like we’re simply
>>>>>>>>>> keeping the architecture the same in the instance.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Yeah - I don't see any usage of tree object from anywhere.
>>>>>>>>> And, we're already creating new object in browser.js (and, not
>>>>>>>>> utitlizing that instance anywhere.)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You are right, we do not need to export tree as a singleton for
>>>>>>>> now. The line that exports the variable tree can be remove when
>>>>>>>> applying the patch number 2.
>>>>>>>> ​
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I think we addressed all the concern raised about this patch. Does
>>>>>>>> this mean that the patch is going to get committed?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes - from me for 0002.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Can you do that today?
>>>>>>
>>>>> Done.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Great, thanks!
>>>>
>>>> On to patch 0003 then :-)
>>>>
>>> Yes - already working on it! :-)
>>>
>> Majority part of the 0003 patch looks good to me.
>> Except choice of the path of some of the file, and name of the functions.
>>
>> Please find the updated patch.
>> I've moved files under the 'pgadmin/static/js/menu' directory under the
>> 'pgadmin/static/js/tree', as they're using tree functionalities directly.
>>
>> Please review it, and let me know your concern.
>>
>> -- Thanks, Ashesh
>>
>>>
>>> -- Thanks, Ashesh
>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Dave Page
>>>> Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com
>>>> Twitter: @pgsnake
>>>>
>>>> EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
>>>> The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>