Re: Feature matrix filter - Mailing list pgsql-www
| From | Magnus Hagander |
|---|---|
| Subject | Re: Feature matrix filter |
| Date | |
| Msg-id | CABUevEz_MoRV3Cptx+ggqum-2ocX2S8pFu9P1gL11vrJZm0zRw@mail.gmail.com Whole thread Raw |
| In response to | Re: Feature matrix filter (Thom Brown <thom@linux.com>) |
| Responses |
Re: Feature matrix filter
|
| List | pgsql-www |
On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 4:17 PM, Thom Brown <thom@linux.com> wrote:
-- Any objections to me committing this?On 13 March 2014 15:04, Dave Page <dpage@pgadmin.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 11:45 PM, Thom Brown <thom@linux.com> wrote:
>> On 30 May 2013 23:12, Thom Brown <thom@linux.com> wrote:
>>> On 30 May 2013 11:33, Dave Page <dpage@pgadmin.org> wrote:
>>>> On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 10:09 PM, Thom Brown <thom@linux.com> wrote:
>>>>> That should be the case with the "hide unchanged features" checkbox
>>>>> checked anyway. The rule is, if it's the same value across all
>>>>> displayed versions (regardless of whether they're all "Yes", "No" or
>>>>> "Obsolete"), the row becomes hidden.
>>>>
>>>> Yeah, I get that. I'm just suggesting that obsolete features should be
>>>> treated differently, as they're even less interesting than something
>>>> that was implemented before the first version show.
>>>
>>> Well it still seems like an unnecessary complication of yet another
>>> checkbox for the sake of 6 affected features. I could add it if you
>>> really want it. The rule would be that if any of the displayed
>>> versions for a particular feature contain "Obsolete" then the row is
>>> hidden.
>>>
>>>> Regardless of that, I do think that checkbox should be on it's own line. And everything centred to look tidier.
>>>
>>> Latest version does that.
>>>
>>> And while we're doing this, would we want to add 7.4 back in? It's in
>>> the database anyway, or is it just too old?
>>
>> So, with 9.4 coming up later this year, the feature matrix will be
>> overflowing many screens.
>>
>> I've rebased the old patch and also included jQuery rather than
>> referring to a Google-hosted copy.
>
> Works for me :-)
I haven't tested it yet (the new version), but a few quick comments based on looking at it:
We have other parts of the site already using jquery, please make sure we're consitent in how we load it (currently we use a CDN - but we should use either one, whichever it is, not both)
You have hardcoded the EOL versions in the javascript, that won't do, that has to come from the db.
Does it (reasonably) gracefully degrade if the browser has no javascript (browser running with noscript)? Doesnt have to be great, but has to not break completely.
Magnus Hagander
Me: http://www.hagander.net/
Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/