Re: Feature matrix filter

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.