Re: Proposal: Drop support for Internet Explorer - Mailing list pgadmin-support

From Dave Page
Subject Re: Proposal: Drop support for Internet Explorer
Date
Msg-id CA+OCxoxpJKNaN-8wfsnm7TYX6cLSQtA+dhz11hyOhC3X1CmhtA@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Proposal: Drop support for Internet Explorer  (Darren Duncan <darren@darrenduncan.net>)
List pgadmin-support


On Tue, 14 Apr 2020 at 18:51, Darren Duncan <darren@darrenduncan.net> wrote:
You have a typo `elif browser != 'chrom'` but otherwise I see no problems with
the patch, thank you. -- Darren Duncan

Well spotted. That was an intentional testing artefact (deliberating causing Chrome to not be recognised), but Akshay also spotted it before committing:-)




On 2020-04-14 7:46 a.m., Dave Page wrote:
> Ooops. Thanks for catching that. Here it is.
>
> On Tue, Apr 14, 2020 at 3:45 PM Neel Patel <neel.patel@enterprisedb.com
> <mailto:neel.patel@enterprisedb.com>> wrote:
>
>     Hi Dave,
>
>     Looks like patch is missing in attachment.
>
>     Thanks,
>     Neel Patel
>
>
>     On Tue 14 Apr, 2020, 6:53 PM Dave Page, <dpage@pgadmin.org
>     <mailto:dpage@pgadmin.org>> wrote:
>
>         Here's an updated patch that gives a slightly different message if the
>         browser is unknown vs. unsupported/deprecated. As with the previous
>         patch, the check can be disabled in the config.
>
>         On Fri, Apr 10, 2020 at 5:07 AM Khushboo Vashi
>         <khushboo.vashi@enterprisedb.com
>         <mailto:khushboo.vashi@enterprisedb.com>> wrote:
>
>
>
>             On Thu, Apr 9, 2020 at 11:57 PM Darren Duncan
>             <darren@darrenduncan.net <mailto:darren@darrenduncan.net>> wrote:
>
>                 The patch looks good as much as I understand it, but this raises
>                 an important
>                 question:
>
>                 How should one best handle minority browsers that may be
>                 completely modern but
>                 you may not specifically know about them?  Such as the newer
>                 crop of browsers
>                 that emphasize stronger privacy or may have fewer identifiers?
>
>                 While going on a whitelist as the patch essentially does for
>                 known good browsers
>                 is conservative, I feel that an alteration would be good.
>
>                 I propose dividing the browsers/environments into 3 categories,
>                 which are
>                 recognized-supported, recognized-unsupported, and unrecognized.
>
>
>                 So the unsupported older versions of supported browsers get a
>                 stronger message
>                 encouraging a browser switch as they are recognized as
>                 unsupported, while
>                 unrecognized browsers get a different weaker message saying they
>                 weren't
>                 recognized so we can't determine if they'd work; both can point
>                 to the list of
>                 known supported browsers.
>
>             I do agree with this suggestion.
>
>                 Related to this, there could be an application toggle that
>                 affects the
>                 unrecognized category where users can basically say, yes I
>                 understand you don't
>                 recognize this browser, please hide the warning, or something
>                 like that.
>
>                 Also, it probably goes without saying, but the code/templates
>                 will need to be
>                 structured in such a way that the warning message uses about
>                 plain as possible
>                 HTML so that if the browser doesn't support displaying the UI in
>                 general it can
>                 at least display the message.
>
>                 -- Darren Duncan
>
>                 On 2020-04-09 4:36 a.m., Dave Page wrote:
>                  > Hi
>                  >
>                  > On Thu, Apr 9, 2020 at 12:26 AM Darren Duncan wrote:
>                  >
>                  >     If its hard to know how many people are actually using
>                 Internet Explorer:
>                  >
>                  >     You could make the next release of pgAdmin display a
>                 message occasionally to
>                  >     users of Internet Explorer saying that Internet Explorer
>                 will no longer be
>                  >     officially supported in a future version, and when that
>                 version comes the
>                  >     message says now no longer supported.
>                  >
>                  >     You can then see how many people contact you about this
>                 to express concern.
>                  >
>                  >
>                  > Good idea. I've hacked up a patch to warn users if they're
>                 using a deprecated or
>                  > unsupported browser.
>                  >
>                  > CCing Akshay for a review :-)
>                  >
>                  > --
>                  > Dave Page
>                  > Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com
>                  > Twitter: @pgsnake
>                  >
>                  > EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
>                  > The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
>
>
>
>
>
>         --
>         Dave Page
>         Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com
>         Twitter: @pgsnake
>
>         EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
>         The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
>
>
>
> --
> Dave Page
> Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com
> Twitter: @pgsnake
>
> EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
> The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

--

pgadmin-support by date:

Previous
From: Ram Sharan
Date:
Subject: unable to Launch PgAdmin
Next
From: Khushboo Vashi
Date:
Subject: Re: unable to Launch PgAdmin