Thread: [pgadmin-hackers] Fix for RM2421 [pgAdmin4][patch]

Hi

With this patch applied, it uses the field names instead of the labels
in error messages - e.g.

'dirty_rate_limit' must be numeric

instead of:

'Dirty Rate Limit (KB)' must be numeric.

Thanks.

On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 8:28 AM, Harshal Dhumal
<harshal.dhumal@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Please find updated patch.
>
> --
> Harshal Dhumal
> Sr. Software Engineer
>
> EnterpriseDB India: http://www.enterprisedb.com
> The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
>
> On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 12:30 PM, Harshal Dhumal
> <harshal.dhumal@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Please ignore this patch as I forgot to include few changes. I'll send
>> updated one.
>>
>> --
>> Harshal Dhumal
>> Sr. Software Engineer
>>
>> EnterpriseDB India: http://www.enterprisedb.com
>> The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
>>
>> On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 3:18 PM, Harshal Dhumal
>> <harshal.dhumal@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Here is updated patch for RM2421.
>>>
>>> Now I have moved all Numeric control level validations to datamodel. As
>>> existing implementation was causing
>>> issues with error messages in create/edit dialog when schema contains two
>>> or more Numeric controls.
>>>
>>> This is generic issue and not related to resource group. Also I have
>>> updated all other nodes which uses Numeric controls
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Harshal Dhumal
>>> Sr. Software Engineer
>>>
>>> EnterpriseDB India: http://www.enterprisedb.com
>>> The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
>>>
>>> On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 12:22 PM, Harshal Dhumal
>>> <harshal.dhumal@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 7:57 PM, Joao Pedro De Almeida Pereira
>>>> <jdealmeidapereira@pivotal.io> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hello Harshal,
>>>>>
>>>>> We review the patch and have some questions:
>>>>> 1) Is there any particular reason to initialize variables and functions
>>>>> in the same place? We believe that it would be more readable there were no
>>>>> chaining of variable creation, specially if those variables are functions.
>>>>> Check line:
>>>>
>>>> That function is only going to be used in checkNumeric function (in case
>>>> of Number control) and checkInt function (in case of Integer control) so
>>>> declared them locally.
>>>> Anyway I'm going to refactor both the controls as Number and Integer
>>>> shares some common properties.
>>>>
>>>>> +++ b/web/pgadmin/static/js/backform.pgadmin.js
>>>>> @@ -1528,7 +1528,18 @@
>>>>>            max_value = field.max,
>>>>>            isValid = true,
>>>>>            intPattern = new RegExp("^-?[0-9]*$"),
>>>>> -          isMatched = intPattern.test(value);
>>>>> +          isMatched = intPattern.test(value),
>>>>> +          trigger_invalid_event = function(msg) {
>>>>>
>>>>> 2) The functions added in both places look very similar, can they be
>>>>> merged and extracted? We are talking about the trigger_invalid_event
>>>>> function.
>>>>
>>>> Yes they can be merged. As of now both NumericControl and IntegerControl
>>>> are derived from InputControl. Ideally
>>>> only NumericControl should be derived from InputControl and
>>>> IntegerControl should be derive from NumericControl.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 3) The following change is very similar to the trigger_invalid_event,
>>>>> was there a reason not to use it?
>>>>
>>>> Below code triggers "model valid" event; opposite to "model invalid"
>>>> event (trigger_invalid_event)
>>>>>
>>>>> +++ b/web/pgadmin/static/js/backform.pgadmin.js
>>>>> @@ -1573,25 +1584,23 @@
>>>>>          this.model.errorModel.unset(name);
>>>>>          this.model.set(name, value);
>>>>>          this.listenTo(this.model, "change:" + name, this.render);
>>>>> -        if (this.model.collection || this.model.handler) {
>>>>> -          (this.model.collection || this.model.handler).trigger(
>>>>> -             'pgadmin-session:model:valid', this.model,
>>>>> (this.model.collection || this.model.handler)
>>>>> -            );
>>>>> +        // Check if other fields of same model are valid before
>>>>> +        // triggering 'session:valid' event
>>>>> +        if(_.size(this.model.errorModel.attributes) == 0) {
>>>>> +          if (this.model.collection || this.model.handler) {
>>>>> +            (this.model.collection || this.model.handler).trigger(
>>>>> +               'pgadmin-session:model:valid', this.model,
>>>>> (this.model.collection || this.model.handler)
>>>>> +              );
>>>>> +          } else {
>>>>> +            (this.model).trigger(
>>>>> +               'pgadmin-session:valid', this.model.sessChanged(),
>>>>> this.model
>>>>> +              );
>>>>> +          }
>>>>>
>>>>> 4) We also noticed that the following change sets look very similiar.
>>>>> Is there any reason to have this code duplicated? If not this could be a
>>>>> good time to refactor it.
>>>>
>>>> As said earlier in response of point 2 code duplication is because the
>>>> way controls are derived.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> +++ b/web/pgadmin/static/js/backform.pgadmin.js
>>>>> @@ -1528,7 +1528,18 @@
>>>>>
>>>>> @@ -1573,25 +1584,23 @@
>>>>>
>>>>> @@ -1631,7 +1640,18 @@
>>>>>
>>>>> @@ -1676,25 +1696,23 @@
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks
>>>>> Joao & Shruti
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 6:01 AM, Harshal Dhumal
>>>>> <harshal.dhumal@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Please find attached patch for RM2421
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Issue fixed: 1. Integer/numeric Validation is not working properly.
>>>>>> 2. Wrong CPU rate unit
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Harshal Dhumal
>>>>>> Sr. Software Engineer
>>>>>>
>>>>>> EnterpriseDB India: http://www.enterprisedb.com
>>>>>> The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Sent via pgadmin-hackers mailing list (pgadmin-hackers@postgresql.org)
>>>>>> To make changes to your subscription:
>>>>>> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgadmin-hackers
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Sent via pgadmin-hackers mailing list (pgadmin-hackers@postgresql.org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgadmin-hackers
>



--
Dave Page
Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com
Twitter: @pgsnake

EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

Can you rebase this please? I think Ashesh broke it :-p

On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 7:42 AM, Harshal Dhumal
<harshal.dhumal@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 9:25 PM, Dave Page <dpage@pgadmin.org> wrote:
>>
>> Hi
>>
>> With this patch applied, it uses the field names instead of the labels
>> in error messages - e.g.
>>
>> 'dirty_rate_limit' must be numeric
>>
>> instead of:
>>
>> 'Dirty Rate Limit (KB)' must be numeric.
>
> Fixed. Please find attached updated patch.
>
>>
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 8:28 AM, Harshal Dhumal
>> <harshal.dhumal@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > Please find updated patch.
>> >
>> > --
>> > Harshal Dhumal
>> > Sr. Software Engineer
>> >
>> > EnterpriseDB India: http://www.enterprisedb.com
>> > The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
>> >
>> > On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 12:30 PM, Harshal Dhumal
>> > <harshal.dhumal@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Hi,
>> >>
>> >> Please ignore this patch as I forgot to include few changes. I'll send
>> >> updated one.
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Harshal Dhumal
>> >> Sr. Software Engineer
>> >>
>> >> EnterpriseDB India: http://www.enterprisedb.com
>> >> The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
>> >>
>> >> On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 3:18 PM, Harshal Dhumal
>> >> <harshal.dhumal@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> Hi,
>> >>>
>> >>> Here is updated patch for RM2421.
>> >>>
>> >>> Now I have moved all Numeric control level validations to datamodel.
>> >>> As
>> >>> existing implementation was causing
>> >>> issues with error messages in create/edit dialog when schema contains
>> >>> two
>> >>> or more Numeric controls.
>> >>>
>> >>> This is generic issue and not related to resource group. Also I have
>> >>> updated all other nodes which uses Numeric controls
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> --
>> >>> Harshal Dhumal
>> >>> Sr. Software Engineer
>> >>>
>> >>> EnterpriseDB India: http://www.enterprisedb.com
>> >>> The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
>> >>>
>> >>> On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 12:22 PM, Harshal Dhumal
>> >>> <harshal.dhumal@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Hi,
>> >>>>
>> >>>> On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 7:57 PM, Joao Pedro De Almeida Pereira
>> >>>> <jdealmeidapereira@pivotal.io> wrote:
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Hello Harshal,
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> We review the patch and have some questions:
>> >>>>> 1) Is there any particular reason to initialize variables and
>> >>>>> functions
>> >>>>> in the same place? We believe that it would be more readable there
>> >>>>> were no
>> >>>>> chaining of variable creation, specially if those variables are
>> >>>>> functions.
>> >>>>> Check line:
>> >>>>
>> >>>> That function is only going to be used in checkNumeric function (in
>> >>>> case
>> >>>> of Number control) and checkInt function (in case of Integer control)
>> >>>> so
>> >>>> declared them locally.
>> >>>> Anyway I'm going to refactor both the controls as Number and Integer
>> >>>> shares some common properties.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>> +++ b/web/pgadmin/static/js/backform.pgadmin.js
>> >>>>> @@ -1528,7 +1528,18 @@
>> >>>>>            max_value = field.max,
>> >>>>>            isValid = true,
>> >>>>>            intPattern = new RegExp("^-?[0-9]*$"),
>> >>>>> -          isMatched = intPattern.test(value);
>> >>>>> +          isMatched = intPattern.test(value),
>> >>>>> +          trigger_invalid_event = function(msg) {
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> 2) The functions added in both places look very similar, can they be
>> >>>>> merged and extracted? We are talking about the trigger_invalid_event
>> >>>>> function.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Yes they can be merged. As of now both NumericControl and
>> >>>> IntegerControl
>> >>>> are derived from InputControl. Ideally
>> >>>> only NumericControl should be derived from InputControl and
>> >>>> IntegerControl should be derive from NumericControl.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> 3) The following change is very similar to the
>> >>>>> trigger_invalid_event,
>> >>>>> was there a reason not to use it?
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Below code triggers "model valid" event; opposite to "model invalid"
>> >>>> event (trigger_invalid_event)
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> +++ b/web/pgadmin/static/js/backform.pgadmin.js
>> >>>>> @@ -1573,25 +1584,23 @@
>> >>>>>          this.model.errorModel.unset(name);
>> >>>>>          this.model.set(name, value);
>> >>>>>          this.listenTo(this.model, "change:" + name, this.render);
>> >>>>> -        if (this.model.collection || this.model.handler) {
>> >>>>> -          (this.model.collection || this.model.handler).trigger(
>> >>>>> -             'pgadmin-session:model:valid', this.model,
>> >>>>> (this.model.collection || this.model.handler)
>> >>>>> -            );
>> >>>>> +        // Check if other fields of same model are valid before
>> >>>>> +        // triggering 'session:valid' event
>> >>>>> +        if(_.size(this.model.errorModel.attributes) == 0) {
>> >>>>> +          if (this.model.collection || this.model.handler) {
>> >>>>> +            (this.model.collection || this.model.handler).trigger(
>> >>>>> +               'pgadmin-session:model:valid', this.model,
>> >>>>> (this.model.collection || this.model.handler)
>> >>>>> +              );
>> >>>>> +          } else {
>> >>>>> +            (this.model).trigger(
>> >>>>> +               'pgadmin-session:valid', this.model.sessChanged(),
>> >>>>> this.model
>> >>>>> +              );
>> >>>>> +          }
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> 4) We also noticed that the following change sets look very
>> >>>>> similiar.
>> >>>>> Is there any reason to have this code duplicated? If not this could
>> >>>>> be a
>> >>>>> good time to refactor it.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> As said earlier in response of point 2 code duplication is because
>> >>>> the
>> >>>> way controls are derived.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> +++ b/web/pgadmin/static/js/backform.pgadmin.js
>> >>>>> @@ -1528,7 +1528,18 @@
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> @@ -1573,25 +1584,23 @@
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> @@ -1631,7 +1640,18 @@
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> @@ -1676,25 +1696,23 @@
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Thanks
>> >>>>> Joao & Shruti
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 6:01 AM, Harshal Dhumal
>> >>>>> <harshal.dhumal@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> Hi,
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> Please find attached patch for RM2421
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> Issue fixed: 1. Integer/numeric Validation is not working properly.
>> >>>>>> 2. Wrong CPU rate unit
>> >>>>>> --
>> >>>>>> Harshal Dhumal
>> >>>>>> Sr. Software Engineer
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> EnterpriseDB India: http://www.enterprisedb.com
>> >>>>>> The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> --
>> >>>>>> Sent via pgadmin-hackers mailing list
>> >>>>>> (pgadmin-hackers@postgresql.org)
>> >>>>>> To make changes to your subscription:
>> >>>>>> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgadmin-hackers
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Sent via pgadmin-hackers mailing list (pgadmin-hackers@postgresql.org)
>> > To make changes to your subscription:
>> > http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgadmin-hackers
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> 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

Thanks, applied.

On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 1:59 PM, Harshal Dhumal
<harshal.dhumal@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
> Please find attached rebased patch.
>
> --
> Harshal Dhumal
> Sr. Software Engineer
>
> EnterpriseDB India: http://www.enterprisedb.com
> The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
>
> On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 6:59 PM, Dave Page <dpage@pgadmin.org> wrote:
>>
>> Can you rebase this please? I think Ashesh broke it :-p
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 7:42 AM, Harshal Dhumal
>> <harshal.dhumal@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 9:25 PM, Dave Page <dpage@pgadmin.org> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Hi
>> >>
>> >> With this patch applied, it uses the field names instead of the labels
>> >> in error messages - e.g.
>> >>
>> >> 'dirty_rate_limit' must be numeric
>> >>
>> >> instead of:
>> >>
>> >> 'Dirty Rate Limit (KB)' must be numeric.
>> >
>> > Fixed. Please find attached updated patch.
>> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Thanks.
>> >>
>> >> On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 8:28 AM, Harshal Dhumal
>> >> <harshal.dhumal@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
>> >> > Hi,
>> >> >
>> >> > Please find updated patch.
>> >> >
>> >> > --
>> >> > Harshal Dhumal
>> >> > Sr. Software Engineer
>> >> >
>> >> > EnterpriseDB India: http://www.enterprisedb.com
>> >> > The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
>> >> >
>> >> > On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 12:30 PM, Harshal Dhumal
>> >> > <harshal.dhumal@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Hi,
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Please ignore this patch as I forgot to include few changes. I'll
>> >> >> send
>> >> >> updated one.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> --
>> >> >> Harshal Dhumal
>> >> >> Sr. Software Engineer
>> >> >>
>> >> >> EnterpriseDB India: http://www.enterprisedb.com
>> >> >> The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 3:18 PM, Harshal Dhumal
>> >> >> <harshal.dhumal@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> Hi,
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> Here is updated patch for RM2421.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> Now I have moved all Numeric control level validations to
>> >> >>> datamodel.
>> >> >>> As
>> >> >>> existing implementation was causing
>> >> >>> issues with error messages in create/edit dialog when schema
>> >> >>> contains
>> >> >>> two
>> >> >>> or more Numeric controls.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> This is generic issue and not related to resource group. Also I
>> >> >>> have
>> >> >>> updated all other nodes which uses Numeric controls
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> --
>> >> >>> Harshal Dhumal
>> >> >>> Sr. Software Engineer
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> EnterpriseDB India: http://www.enterprisedb.com
>> >> >>> The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 12:22 PM, Harshal Dhumal
>> >> >>> <harshal.dhumal@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> Hi,
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 7:57 PM, Joao Pedro De Almeida Pereira
>> >> >>>> <jdealmeidapereira@pivotal.io> wrote:
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>> Hello Harshal,
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>> We review the patch and have some questions:
>> >> >>>>> 1) Is there any particular reason to initialize variables and
>> >> >>>>> functions
>> >> >>>>> in the same place? We believe that it would be more readable
>> >> >>>>> there
>> >> >>>>> were no
>> >> >>>>> chaining of variable creation, specially if those variables are
>> >> >>>>> functions.
>> >> >>>>> Check line:
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> That function is only going to be used in checkNumeric function
>> >> >>>> (in
>> >> >>>> case
>> >> >>>> of Number control) and checkInt function (in case of Integer
>> >> >>>> control)
>> >> >>>> so
>> >> >>>> declared them locally.
>> >> >>>> Anyway I'm going to refactor both the controls as Number and
>> >> >>>> Integer
>> >> >>>> shares some common properties.
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>>> +++ b/web/pgadmin/static/js/backform.pgadmin.js
>> >> >>>>> @@ -1528,7 +1528,18 @@
>> >> >>>>>            max_value = field.max,
>> >> >>>>>            isValid = true,
>> >> >>>>>            intPattern = new RegExp("^-?[0-9]*$"),
>> >> >>>>> -          isMatched = intPattern.test(value);
>> >> >>>>> +          isMatched = intPattern.test(value),
>> >> >>>>> +          trigger_invalid_event = function(msg) {
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>> 2) The functions added in both places look very similar, can they
>> >> >>>>> be
>> >> >>>>> merged and extracted? We are talking about the
>> >> >>>>> trigger_invalid_event
>> >> >>>>> function.
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> Yes they can be merged. As of now both NumericControl and
>> >> >>>> IntegerControl
>> >> >>>> are derived from InputControl. Ideally
>> >> >>>> only NumericControl should be derived from InputControl and
>> >> >>>> IntegerControl should be derive from NumericControl.
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>> 3) The following change is very similar to the
>> >> >>>>> trigger_invalid_event,
>> >> >>>>> was there a reason not to use it?
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> Below code triggers "model valid" event; opposite to "model
>> >> >>>> invalid"
>> >> >>>> event (trigger_invalid_event)
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>> +++ b/web/pgadmin/static/js/backform.pgadmin.js
>> >> >>>>> @@ -1573,25 +1584,23 @@
>> >> >>>>>          this.model.errorModel.unset(name);
>> >> >>>>>          this.model.set(name, value);
>> >> >>>>>          this.listenTo(this.model, "change:" + name,
>> >> >>>>> this.render);
>> >> >>>>> -        if (this.model.collection || this.model.handler) {
>> >> >>>>> -          (this.model.collection || this.model.handler).trigger(
>> >> >>>>> -             'pgadmin-session:model:valid', this.model,
>> >> >>>>> (this.model.collection || this.model.handler)
>> >> >>>>> -            );
>> >> >>>>> +        // Check if other fields of same model are valid before
>> >> >>>>> +        // triggering 'session:valid' event
>> >> >>>>> +        if(_.size(this.model.errorModel.attributes) == 0) {
>> >> >>>>> +          if (this.model.collection || this.model.handler) {
>> >> >>>>> +            (this.model.collection ||
>> >> >>>>> this.model.handler).trigger(
>> >> >>>>> +               'pgadmin-session:model:valid', this.model,
>> >> >>>>> (this.model.collection || this.model.handler)
>> >> >>>>> +              );
>> >> >>>>> +          } else {
>> >> >>>>> +            (this.model).trigger(
>> >> >>>>> +               'pgadmin-session:valid',
>> >> >>>>> this.model.sessChanged(),
>> >> >>>>> this.model
>> >> >>>>> +              );
>> >> >>>>> +          }
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>> 4) We also noticed that the following change sets look very
>> >> >>>>> similiar.
>> >> >>>>> Is there any reason to have this code duplicated? If not this
>> >> >>>>> could
>> >> >>>>> be a
>> >> >>>>> good time to refactor it.
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> As said earlier in response of point 2 code duplication is because
>> >> >>>> the
>> >> >>>> way controls are derived.
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>> +++ b/web/pgadmin/static/js/backform.pgadmin.js
>> >> >>>>> @@ -1528,7 +1528,18 @@
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>> @@ -1573,25 +1584,23 @@
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>> @@ -1631,7 +1640,18 @@
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>> @@ -1676,25 +1696,23 @@
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>> Thanks
>> >> >>>>> Joao & Shruti
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>> On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 6:01 AM, Harshal Dhumal
>> >> >>>>> <harshal.dhumal@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
>> >> >>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>> Hi,
>> >> >>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>> Please find attached patch for RM2421
>> >> >>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>> Issue fixed: 1. Integer/numeric Validation is not working
>> >> >>>>>> properly.
>> >> >>>>>> 2. Wrong CPU rate unit
>> >> >>>>>> --
>> >> >>>>>> Harshal Dhumal
>> >> >>>>>> Sr. Software Engineer
>> >> >>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>> EnterpriseDB India: http://www.enterprisedb.com
>> >> >>>>>> The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
>> >> >>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>> --
>> >> >>>>>> Sent via pgadmin-hackers mailing list
>> >> >>>>>> (pgadmin-hackers@postgresql.org)
>> >> >>>>>> To make changes to your subscription:
>> >> >>>>>> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgadmin-hackers
>> >> >>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > --
>> >> > Sent via pgadmin-hackers mailing list
>> >> > (pgadmin-hackers@postgresql.org)
>> >> > To make changes to your subscription:
>> >> > http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgadmin-hackers
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> 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