Re: Feature matrix filter

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