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

Hey Ashesh,

LGTM! The some of the CI tests failed but it looks like a flake. But you
can go ahead and merge this.

Sincerely,

Victoria

On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 2:36 PM Ashesh Vashi <ashesh(dot)vashi(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
wrote:

> On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 10:09 PM, Victoria Henry <vhenry(at)pivotal(dot)io> wrote:
>
>> Hi Ashesh,
>>
>> We just attempted to apply your patch over master but it did not work.
>> We don't want to introduce any bugs or break any functionality. Please
>> update the patch to make sure it is synced up with the master branch.
>>
> Please find the updated patch.
>
>>
>> Sincerely,
>>
>> Victoria
>>
>> On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 11:18 AM Anthony Emengo <aemengo(at)pivotal(dot)io>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hey Ashesh,
>>>
>>> Thanks for the explanation. It was great and it really helped!
>>>
>>> C pgadmin/browser/server_groups/servers/databases/schemas/static/js/child.js
>>> C pgadmin/browser/server_groups/servers/databases/schemas/static/js/schema_child_tree_node.js
>>>
>>> It makes sense to remove duplication by extracting these attributes out
>>> and setting the canDrop and canCreate functions here. But is it
>>> possible to combine these two files into one since they are related so we
>>> don’t need to import schema_child_tree_node?
>>>
>> That was the original plan, but 'pgadmin/browser/static/js//node.js'
> script has too many dependecies, which are not easily portable.
> And - that may lead to change the scope of the patch.
>
> Hence - I decided to use the separate file to make sure we have enough
> test coverage (which is more imprortant than changing the scope).
>
>> M pgadmin/static/js/tree/tree.js
>>>
>>> The creation of the ancestorNode function feels like a
>>> pre-optimization. That function is not used any where outside of the
>>> tree.js file, so it’s more confusing to have it defined.
>>>
>> It is being used in the latest changes. :-)
>
>
>> On a lighter note, could we avoid the !! syntax when possible? For
>>> example, instead of return !!obj, we could do something like return obj
>>> === undefined or return _.isUndefined(obj) as this is more intuitive.
>>>
>>> https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/a/80092
>>>
>> I am kind of disagree here. But - I have changed it anyway.
>
>> In addition, please update this patch as it is out of sync with the
>>> latest commit on the master branch. Otherwise, everything looks good!
>>>
>> Here - you go!
>
> -- Thanks, Ashesh
>
>> ​
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>> Anthony && Victoria
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 7:52 AM Ashesh Vashi <
>>> ashesh(dot)vashi(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 8:13 PM, Joao De Almeida Pereira <
>>>> jdealmeidapereira(at)pivotal(dot)io> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hey, Thanks so much for the reply.
>>>>>
>>>>> We've noticed that you've made several modifications on top of our
>>>>> original patch. Unfortunately, we've found it very hard to follow. Could we
>>>>> please get a brief synopsis of the changes you have made - just so we can
>>>>> better understand the rationale behind them? Just like we've done for you
>>>>> previously.
>>>>>
>>>> Please find the changes from your original patch:
>>>>
>>>> M webpack.shim.js
>>>> M webpack.test.config.js
>>>> - In order to specify the fake_browser in regression tests, we need to use 'pgbrowser/browser' in the 'schema_child_tree_node.js' script.D pgadmin/browser/server_groups/servers/databases/schemas/static/js/can_drop_child.js
>>>> - We don't need this with the new implementation.C pgadmin/browser/server_groups/servers/databases/schemas/static/js/child.js
>>>> - All the children of schema node have common properties as 'parent_type', 'canDrop', 'canDropCascase', 'canCreate'.
>>>> Hence - instead of defining them in each node, we have created a base node, which will have all these properties.
>>>> And, modified all schema children node to inherit from it.C pgadmin/browser/server_groups/servers/databases/schemas/static/js/schema_child_tree_node.js
>>>> - In this script, we're defining three functions 'childCreateMenuEnabled', 'isTreeItemOfChildOfSchema', & 'isTreeNodeOfSchemaChild', which are used by the 'SchemaChildNode' objects.M pgadmin/browser/static/js/collection.js
>>>> - Fixed an issue related to wrongly defined 'error' function for the Collection object.D pgadmin/static/js/menu/can_create.js
>>>> - It defined the function, which was defining a check for creation of a schema child node, or not by looking at the parent node (i.e. a schema/catalog node).
>>>> The file was not defintely placed under the wrong directory, because - the similar logic was under 'can_drop_child.js', and it was defined under 'pgadmin/browser/server_groups/servers/databases/schemas/static/js' directory.D pgadmin/static/js/menu/menu_enabled.jsC pgadmin/static/js/nodes/supported_database_node.js
>>>> - Used by the external tools for checking whether the 'selected' tree-node is:
>>>> + 'database' node, and it is allowed to connect it.
>>>> + Or, it is one of the schema child (and, not 'catalog' child).
>>>> - Finding the correct location was difficult for this, as there is no defined pattern, also it can be used by other functions too. Hence - moved it out of 'pgadmin/static/js/menu' directory.M pgadmin/static/js/tree/tree.js
>>>> - Introduced a function, which returns the ancestor node object, fow which the condition is true.D regression/javascript/menu/can_create_spec.js
>>>> D regression/javascript/menu/menu_enabled_spec.js
>>>> D regression/javascript/schema/can_drop_child_spec.jsC regression/javascript/fake_browser/browser.js
>>>> C regression/javascript/nodes/schema/child_menu_spec.js
>>>> - Modified the regression to test the new functionalies.M pgadmin/browser/server_groups/servers/databases/schemas/**/*.js
>>>> - Extending the schema child nodes from the 'SchemaChildNode' class defined in 'pgadmin/.../schemas/static/js/child.js' script.
>>>>
>>>> Let me know if you need more information.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Let's keep in mind that the original intent was simply to introduce
>>>>> this abstraction into the code base, which is a big enough task. I'd hate
>>>>> for the scope of the changes we're making to expand beyond that.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I have the mutual feeling.
>>>>
>>>> -- Thanks, Ashesh
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks
>>>>> Joao && Anthony
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 2:59 AM Ashesh Vashi <
>>>>> ashesh(dot)vashi(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Sorry for the late reply.
>>>>>> On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 8:55 PM, Anthony Emengo <aemengo(at)pivotal(dot)io>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> export function canCreate(pgBrowser, childOfCatalogType) {
>>>>>>> return canCreateObject.bind({
>>>>>>> browser: pgBrowser,
>>>>>>> childOfCatalogType: childOfCatalogType,
>>>>>>> });
>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> With respect to the above code: this bind pattern looks good and
>>>>>>> seems like the idiomatic way to handle this in JavaScript. On a lighter
>>>>>>> node, I don’t even see the need for an additional method to wrap it. The
>>>>>>> invocation could have easily been like canCreate:
>>>>>>> canCreateObject.bind({ browser: pgBrowser, childOfCatalogType:
>>>>>>> childOfCatalogType }), I don’t feel too strongly here.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> I do agree - we can handle the same problem many ways.
>>>>>> I prefer object oriented pardigm more in general.
>>>>>> Any way - I have modified the code with some other changes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I renamed it as isValidTreeNodeData, because - we were using it in
>>>>>>> for testing the tree data. Please suggest me the right place, and name.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We’re not sure; maybe after continued refactoring, we will come
>>>>>>> across more generic functions. At that point we can revisit this and create
>>>>>>> a utils.js file.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sure.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We’re particularly worried because we’re trying to avoid the
>>>>>>> coupling that we see in the code base today. We want to decouple *application
>>>>>>> state* from *business domain* logic as much as we can - because
>>>>>>> this makes the code much easier to understand. We achieve lower coupling by
>>>>>>> have more suitable interfaces to retrieve *application state* like:
>>>>>>> anyParent (the menu doesn’t care how this happens). This is the
>>>>>>> direction that we’re trying to move towards, we just don’t want the package
>>>>>>> structure to undermine that developer intent.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> I realized after revisiting the code, menu/can_create.js was only
>>>>>> applicable to the children of the schema/catalog nodes, same as
>>>>>> 'can_drop_child'.
>>>>>> We should have put both scripts in the same directory.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Please find the updated patch for the same.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Please review it, and let me know your concerns.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -- Thanks, Ashesh
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> How about nodeMenu.isSupportedNode(…)?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Naming is one of the hardest problems in programming. I don’t feel
>>>>>>> too strongly about this one. For now, let’s keep it as is
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>>> Anthony && Victoria
>>>>>>> ​
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>