Thread: Feature matrix filter
Howdy all, Whilst at PGCon I briefly discussed with Stefan the idea of providing a jQuery-powered filtering system for the feature matrix. This is because it's becoming increasingly bloated. Prototype attached. This should have no effect on those who have Javascript disabled. Feedback welcome. -- Thom
Attachment
Hi On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 7:01 PM, Thom Brown <thom@linux.com> wrote: > Howdy all, > > Whilst at PGCon I briefly discussed with Stefan the idea of providing > a jQuery-powered filtering system for the feature matrix. This is > because it's becoming increasingly bloated. > > Prototype attached. This should have no effect on those who have > Javascript disabled. > > Feedback welcome. A couple of things spring to mind: - I think it's more natural to have the checkboxes after the labels, not before, e.g. 8.3 [x] 8.4 [x] 9.0 [x] (I actually found it quite off-putting having them the other way around). - By default, perhaps we should only show supported versions and betas/alphas, so the grid isn't too big when the user starts. - Should we automatically hide obsolete features if they're obsolete in all displayed versions? Maybe that should be a checkable option (on by default) shown below the list of versions along with "Hide unchanged features" -- Dave Page Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com Twitter: @pgsnake EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
On 29 May 2013 21:16, Dave Page <dpage@pgadmin.org> wrote: > Hi > > On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 7:01 PM, Thom Brown <thom@linux.com> wrote: >> Howdy all, >> >> Whilst at PGCon I briefly discussed with Stefan the idea of providing >> a jQuery-powered filtering system for the feature matrix. This is >> because it's becoming increasingly bloated. >> >> Prototype attached. This should have no effect on those who have >> Javascript disabled. >> >> Feedback welcome. > > A couple of things spring to mind: > > - I think it's more natural to have the checkboxes after the labels, > not before, e.g. > > 8.3 [x] 8.4 [x] 9.0 [x] > > (I actually found it quite off-putting having them the other way around). I agree as it happens. > - By default, perhaps we should only show supported versions and > betas/alphas, so the grid isn't too big when the user starts. Easy enough. > - Should we automatically hide obsolete features if they're obsolete > in all displayed versions? Maybe that should be a checkable option (on > by default) shown below the list of versions along with "Hide > unchanged features" 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. Updated version attached. -- Thom
Attachment
On 29 May 2013 22:09, Thom Brown <thom@linux.com> wrote: > On 29 May 2013 21:16, Dave Page <dpage@pgadmin.org> wrote: >> Hi >> >> On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 7:01 PM, Thom Brown <thom@linux.com> wrote: >>> Howdy all, >>> >>> Whilst at PGCon I briefly discussed with Stefan the idea of providing >>> a jQuery-powered filtering system for the feature matrix. This is >>> because it's becoming increasingly bloated. >>> >>> Prototype attached. This should have no effect on those who have >>> Javascript disabled. >>> >>> Feedback welcome. >> >> A couple of things spring to mind: >> >> - I think it's more natural to have the checkboxes after the labels, >> not before, e.g. >> >> 8.3 [x] 8.4 [x] 9.0 [x] >> >> (I actually found it quite off-putting having them the other way around). > > I agree as it happens. > >> - By default, perhaps we should only show supported versions and >> betas/alphas, so the grid isn't too big when the user starts. > > Easy enough. > >> - Should we automatically hide obsolete features if they're obsolete >> in all displayed versions? Maybe that should be a checkable option (on >> by default) shown below the list of versions along with "Hide >> unchanged features" > > 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. > > Updated version attached. Actually, I guess the "Hide unchanged features" label should be to the left of its control too. (reattached) -- Thom
Attachment
On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 10:09 PM, Thom Brown <thom@linux.com> wrote: > On 29 May 2013 21:16, Dave Page <dpage@pgadmin.org> wrote: >> Hi >> >> On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 7:01 PM, Thom Brown <thom@linux.com> wrote: >>> Howdy all, >>> >>> Whilst at PGCon I briefly discussed with Stefan the idea of providing >>> a jQuery-powered filtering system for the feature matrix. This is >>> because it's becoming increasingly bloated. >>> >>> Prototype attached. This should have no effect on those who have >>> Javascript disabled. >>> >>> Feedback welcome. >> >> A couple of things spring to mind: >> >> - I think it's more natural to have the checkboxes after the labels, >> not before, e.g. >> >> 8.3 [x] 8.4 [x] 9.0 [x] >> >> (I actually found it quite off-putting having them the other way around). > > I agree as it happens. Definitely an improvement. >> - By default, perhaps we should only show supported versions and >> betas/alphas, so the grid isn't too big when the user starts. > > Easy enough. > >> - Should we automatically hide obsolete features if they're obsolete >> in all displayed versions? Maybe that should be a checkable option (on >> by default) shown below the list of versions along with "Hide >> unchanged features" > > 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. Regardless of that, I do think that checkbox should be on it's own line. -- Dave Page Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com Twitter: @pgsnake EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
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: >> On 29 May 2013 21:16, Dave Page <dpage@pgadmin.org> wrote: >>> Hi >>> >>> On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 7:01 PM, Thom Brown <thom@linux.com> wrote: >>>> Howdy all, >>>> >>>> Whilst at PGCon I briefly discussed with Stefan the idea of providing >>>> a jQuery-powered filtering system for the feature matrix. This is >>>> because it's becoming increasingly bloated. >>>> >>>> Prototype attached. This should have no effect on those who have >>>> Javascript disabled. >>>> >>>> Feedback welcome. >>> >>> A couple of things spring to mind: >>> >>> - I think it's more natural to have the checkboxes after the labels, >>> not before, e.g. >>> >>> 8.3 [x] 8.4 [x] 9.0 [x] >>> >>> (I actually found it quite off-putting having them the other way around). >> >> I agree as it happens. > > Definitely an improvement. > >>> - By default, perhaps we should only show supported versions and >>> betas/alphas, so the grid isn't too big when the user starts. >> >> Easy enough. >> >>> - Should we automatically hide obsolete features if they're obsolete >>> in all displayed versions? Maybe that should be a checkable option (on >>> by default) shown below the list of versions along with "Hide >>> unchanged features" >> >> 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. > > Regardless of that, I do think that checkbox should be on it's own line. Unfortunately the latest version of my distro of choice was released yesterday, so after 3 versions of not upgrading I decided to upgrade (fresh install), but now I'm on Django 1.4.5/Python 2.7, and I can't get the site running locally again. :/ -- Thom
On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 11:39 AM, 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: >>> On 29 May 2013 21:16, Dave Page <dpage@pgadmin.org> wrote: >>>> Hi >>>> >>>> On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 7:01 PM, Thom Brown <thom@linux.com> wrote: >>>>> Howdy all, >>>>> >>>>> Whilst at PGCon I briefly discussed with Stefan the idea of providing >>>>> a jQuery-powered filtering system for the feature matrix. This is >>>>> because it's becoming increasingly bloated. >>>>> >>>>> Prototype attached. This should have no effect on those who have >>>>> Javascript disabled. >>>>> >>>>> Feedback welcome. >>>> >>>> A couple of things spring to mind: >>>> >>>> - I think it's more natural to have the checkboxes after the labels, >>>> not before, e.g. >>>> >>>> 8.3 [x] 8.4 [x] 9.0 [x] >>>> >>>> (I actually found it quite off-putting having them the other way around). >>> >>> I agree as it happens. >> >> Definitely an improvement. >> >>>> - By default, perhaps we should only show supported versions and >>>> betas/alphas, so the grid isn't too big when the user starts. >>> >>> Easy enough. >>> >>>> - Should we automatically hide obsolete features if they're obsolete >>>> in all displayed versions? Maybe that should be a checkable option (on >>>> by default) shown below the list of versions along with "Hide >>>> unchanged features" >>> >>> 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. >> >> Regardless of that, I do think that checkbox should be on it's own line. > > Unfortunately the latest version of my distro of choice was released > yesterday, so after 3 versions of not upgrading I decided to upgrade > (fresh install), but now I'm on Django 1.4.5/Python 2.7, and I can't > get the site running locally again. :/ virtualenv is your friend :-) Failing that, I believe Magnus has or is in the process of creating an update to support 1.4 (we need it to upgrade wrigleys.postgresql.org to Wheezy). -- Dave Page Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com Twitter: @pgsnake EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 6:39 AM, 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: >>> On 29 May 2013 21:16, Dave Page <dpage@pgadmin.org> wrote: >>>> Hi >>>> >>>> On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 7:01 PM, Thom Brown <thom@linux.com> wrote: >>>>> Howdy all, >>>>> >>>>> Whilst at PGCon I briefly discussed with Stefan the idea of providing >>>>> a jQuery-powered filtering system for the feature matrix. This is >>>>> because it's becoming increasingly bloated. >>>>> >>>>> Prototype attached. This should have no effect on those who have >>>>> Javascript disabled. >>>>> >>>>> Feedback welcome. >>>> >>>> A couple of things spring to mind: >>>> >>>> - I think it's more natural to have the checkboxes after the labels, >>>> not before, e.g. >>>> >>>> 8.3 [x] 8.4 [x] 9.0 [x] >>>> >>>> (I actually found it quite off-putting having them the other way around). >>> >>> I agree as it happens. >> >> Definitely an improvement. >> >>>> - By default, perhaps we should only show supported versions and >>>> betas/alphas, so the grid isn't too big when the user starts. >>> >>> Easy enough. >>> >>>> - Should we automatically hide obsolete features if they're obsolete >>>> in all displayed versions? Maybe that should be a checkable option (on >>>> by default) shown below the list of versions along with "Hide >>>> unchanged features" >>> >>> 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. >> >> Regardless of that, I do think that checkbox should be on it's own line. > > Unfortunately the latest version of my distro of choice was released > yesterday, so after 3 versions of not upgrading I decided to upgrade > (fresh install), but now I'm on Django 1.4.5/Python 2.7, and I can't > get the site running locally again. :/ I've got a branch that works with 1.4 (well, ish - markdown is broken, but in general it works) to be used when we get to wheezy. I can try to push it up to github tonight or tomorrow so you can work off that to test things. --Magnus HaganderMe: http://www.hagander.net/Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
On 30 May 2013 11:54, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote: > On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 6:39 AM, 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: >>>> On 29 May 2013 21:16, Dave Page <dpage@pgadmin.org> wrote: >>>>> Hi >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 7:01 PM, Thom Brown <thom@linux.com> wrote: >>>>>> Howdy all, >>>>>> >>>>>> Whilst at PGCon I briefly discussed with Stefan the idea of providing >>>>>> a jQuery-powered filtering system for the feature matrix. This is >>>>>> because it's becoming increasingly bloated. >>>>>> >>>>>> Prototype attached. This should have no effect on those who have >>>>>> Javascript disabled. >>>>>> >>>>>> Feedback welcome. >>>>> >>>>> A couple of things spring to mind: >>>>> >>>>> - I think it's more natural to have the checkboxes after the labels, >>>>> not before, e.g. >>>>> >>>>> 8.3 [x] 8.4 [x] 9.0 [x] >>>>> >>>>> (I actually found it quite off-putting having them the other way around). >>>> >>>> I agree as it happens. >>> >>> Definitely an improvement. >>> >>>>> - By default, perhaps we should only show supported versions and >>>>> betas/alphas, so the grid isn't too big when the user starts. >>>> >>>> Easy enough. >>>> >>>>> - Should we automatically hide obsolete features if they're obsolete >>>>> in all displayed versions? Maybe that should be a checkable option (on >>>>> by default) shown below the list of versions along with "Hide >>>>> unchanged features" >>>> >>>> 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. >>> >>> Regardless of that, I do think that checkbox should be on it's own line. >> >> Unfortunately the latest version of my distro of choice was released >> yesterday, so after 3 versions of not upgrading I decided to upgrade >> (fresh install), but now I'm on Django 1.4.5/Python 2.7, and I can't >> get the site running locally again. :/ > > I've got a branch that works with 1.4 (well, ish - markdown is broken, > but in general it works) to be used when we get to wheezy. I can try > to push it up to github tonight or tomorrow so you can work off that > to test things. Great, thanks. :) I'll leave it until then. -- Thom
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? -- Thom
Attachment
On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 11:12 PM, 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. My original suggestion was just to hide them always. I still think that's fine. I have no particular desire for a checkbox for this, but suggested it in case anyone did. >> 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. That looks much nicer :-) > 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? It does help show the progression of the project, and there is certainly room for the checkbox. I don't object to including it. -- Dave Page Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com Twitter: @pgsnake EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
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. -- Thom
Attachment
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 :-) -- Dave Page Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com Twitter: @pgsnake EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
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 :-) Any objections to me committing this? -- Thom
Nope.
--
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
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" checkboxchecked anyway. The rule is, if it's the same value across alldisplayed 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 betreated differently, as they're even less interesting than somethingthat was implemented before the first version show.Well it still seems like an unnecessary complication of yet anothercheckbox for the sake of 6 affected features. I could add it if youreally want it. The rule would be that if any of the displayedversions for a particular feature contain "Obsolete" then the row ishidden.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 inthe database anyway, or is it just too old?So, with 9.4 coming up later this year, the feature matrix will beoverflowing many screens.I've rebased the old patch and also included jQuery rather thanreferring to a Google-hosted copy.Works for me :-)
Any objections to me committing this?
--
Thom
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/
On 13 March 2014 15:29, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote: > On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 4:17 PM, Thom Brown <thom@linux.com> wrote: >> >> 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 :-) >> >> Any objections to me committing this? > > > I haven't tested it yet (the new version), but a few quick comments based on > looking at it: Argh... just as I pushed it out. > 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) Okay, I can switch it back to the CDN if you prefer. > You have hardcoded the EOL versions in the javascript, that won't do, that > has to come from the db. Okay, I'll investigate. > 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. Users with Javascript disabled should not notice any difference. -- Thom
On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 4:31 PM, Thom Brown <thom@linux.com> wrote:
Argh... just as I pushed it out.On 13 March 2014 15:29, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 4:17 PM, Thom Brown <thom@linux.com> wrote:
>>
>> 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 :-)
>>
>> Any objections to me committing this?
>
>
> I haven't tested it yet (the new version), but a few quick comments based on
> looking at it:
No better time to fix it than now :D
> We have other parts of the site already using jquery, please make sure we'reOkay, I can switch it back to the CDN if you prefer.
> consitent in how we load it (currently we use a CDN - but we should use
> either one, whichever it is, not both)
Either that, or change the existing usage to use an embedded one. But I think in general people tend to say that using a CDN is a good idea for this.
> You have hardcoded the EOL versions in the javascript, that won't do, thatOkay, I'll investigate.
> has to come from the db.
Should be easy enough to get in there, of course, just through a template variable.
> Does it (reasonably) gracefully degrade if the browser has no javascriptUsers with Javascript disabled should not notice any difference.
> (browser running with noscript)? Doesnt have to be great, but has to not
> break completely.
Excellent.
Magnus Hagander
Me: http://www.hagander.net/
Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 3:33 PM, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote: > On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 4:31 PM, Thom Brown <thom@linux.com> wrote: >> >> On 13 March 2014 15:29, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote: >> > On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 4:17 PM, Thom Brown <thom@linux.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> 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 :-) >> >> >> >> Any objections to me committing this? >> > >> > >> > I haven't tested it yet (the new version), but a few quick comments >> > based on >> > looking at it: >> >> Argh... just as I pushed it out. > > > No better time to fix it than now :D > > >> > 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) >> >> Okay, I can switch it back to the CDN if you prefer. > > > Either that, or change the existing usage to use an embedded one. But I > think in general people tend to say that using a CDN is a good idea for > this. Until someone we don't know breaks it of course. > >> > You have hardcoded the EOL versions in the javascript, that won't do, >> > that >> > has to come from the db. >> >> Okay, I'll investigate. > > > Should be easy enough to get in there, of course, just through a template > variable. > > >> > 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. >> >> Users with Javascript disabled should not notice any difference. > > > Excellent. > > -- > Magnus Hagander > Me: http://www.hagander.net/ > Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/ -- Dave Page Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com Twitter: @pgsnake EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 4:35 PM, Dave Page <dpage@pgadmin.org> wrote:
-- Until someone we don't know breaks it of course.On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 3:33 PM, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 4:31 PM, Thom Brown <thom@linux.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 13 March 2014 15:29, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote:
>> > On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 4:17 PM, Thom Brown <thom@linux.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> 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 :-)
>> >>
>> >> Any objections to me committing this?
>> >
>> >
>> > I haven't tested it yet (the new version), but a few quick comments
>> > based on
>> > looking at it:
>>
>> Argh... just as I pushed it out.
>
>
> No better time to fix it than now :D
>
>
>> > 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)
>>
>> Okay, I can switch it back to the CDN if you prefer.
>
>
> Either that, or change the existing usage to use an embedded one. But I
> think in general people tend to say that using a CDN is a good idea for
> this.
Of course. But given the tens or hundreds of thousands, at least, sites that rely on Google not breaking that, I think we're reasonably safe. Half the bloody internet will break if they stop hosting that one, and we can easily switch to a locally hosted one at that time if we have to.
Magnus Hagander
Me: http://www.hagander.net/
Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/