Re: More information about the selected objects

Hello,

When you click on a table, in the status bar appears: "Retrieving details
on table <table_name>..."

I'd like to put more information and leave it like this: "Retrieving
details on table <database_name>-><schema_name>.<table_name>, For example:

"Retrieving details on table db_developers->public.table..."

The same for all objects, like functions, views, operators, triggers, etc..

I would like to do this, because when there are many tables I end up
getting lost and not knowing what database I'm working ...

So, this information would solve the problem. What do you think?

> So, this information would solve the problem. What do you think?
>

Any comment? Can I develop the patch?

On Fri, 2012-07-13 at 21:47 -0300, Vinicius Santos wrote:
> > So, this information would solve the problem. What do you think?
> >
>
> Any comment? Can I develop the patch?

You can certainly work on a patch. Shouldn't be hard to code.

I see some value on it, but I don't like the arrow.

--
Guillaume
http://blog.guillaume.lelarge.info
http://www.dalibo.com

Forwarding, sorry.

2012/7/14 Vinicius Santos <vinicius(dot)santos(dot)lista(at)gmail(dot)com>

> I see some value on it, but I don't like the arrow.
>>
>
> Any suggestions?
> I could put the point rather than the arrow or other something. What do
> you think?
>

On Sat, 2012-07-14 at 10:59 -0300, Vinicius Santos wrote:
> Forwarding, sorry.
>
> 2012/7/14 Vinicius Santos <vinicius(dot)santos(dot)lista(at)gmail(dot)com>
> I see some value on it, but I don't like the arrow.
>
>
> Any suggestions?
> I could put the point rather than the arrow or other
> something. What do you think?
>

Not sure I like the point either. We don't have that notation on
PostgreSQL. I think I would prefer something like "Retrieving details on
table schema.table" and not say the database. Because if you add the
database, someone will probably want also the server. It may not be
usefull to you, but it'll come at some point. And that's quite a lot of
informations.

Probably we could add some status boxes in the status bar. For exemple,
a box with a "user(at)database (server)" (with a lock icon if you use SSL
for example. Just a thought.

--
Guillaume
http://blog.guillaume.lelarge.info
http://www.dalibo.com

> Not sure I like the point either. We don't have that notation on
> PostgreSQL. I think I would prefer something like "Retrieving details on
> table schema.table" and not say the database. Because if you add the
> database, someone will probably want also the server. It may not be
> usefull to you, but it'll come at some point. And that's quite a lot of
> informations.
>

I agree.

> Probably we could add some status boxes in the status bar. For exemple,
> a box with a "user(at)database (server)" (with a lock icon if you use SSL
> for example. Just a thought.
>
>
I liked the idea!

We could add status boxes in front of the information "Retrieving details
...".

For example, suppose that is the status bar:

With 3 status boxes:

|| "Retrieving details on schema.table" || user(at)database || server ||

or with 2 status boxes:

|| "Retrieving details on schema.table" || user(at)database ( server ) ||

On Sat, 2012-07-14 at 11:28 -0300, Vinicius Santos wrote:
>
> Not sure I like the point either. We don't have that notation
> on
> PostgreSQL. I think I would prefer something like "Retrieving
> details on
> table schema.table" and not say the database. Because if you
> add the
> database, someone will probably want also the server. It may
> not be
> usefull to you, but it'll come at some point. And that's quite
> a lot of
> informations.
>
> I agree.
>
>
>
> Probably we could add some status boxes in the status bar. For
> exemple,
> a box with a "user(at)database (server)" (with a lock icon if you
> use SSL
> for example. Just a thought.
>
>
>
> I liked the idea!
>
> We could add status boxes in front of the information "Retrieving
> details ...".
>
> For example, suppose that is the status bar:
>
> With 3 status boxes:
>
> || "Retrieving details on schema.table" || user(at)database || server ||
>
> or with 2 status boxes:
>
> || "Retrieving details on schema.table" || user(at)database ( server )
> ||
>
>

I think I like the second one better, but this is just my opinion.

--
Guillaume
http://blog.guillaume.lelarge.info
http://www.dalibo.com

>
> I think I like the second one better, but this is just my opinion.
>

Well, I'll start working on the second, then.

If new opinions, we changed.

On Saturday, July 14, 2012, Guillaume Lelarge wrote:

> On Sat, 2012-07-14 at 11:28 -0300, Vinicius Santos wrote:
> >
> > Not sure I like the point either. We don't have that notation
> > on
> > PostgreSQL. I think I would prefer something like "Retrieving
> > details on
> > table schema.table" and not say the database. Because if you
> > add the
> > database, someone will probably want also the server. It may
> > not be
> > usefull to you, but it'll come at some point. And that's quite
> > a lot of
> > informations.
> >
> > I agree.
> >
> >
> >
> > Probably we could add some status boxes in the status bar. For
> > exemple,
> > a box with a "user(at)database (server)" (with a lock icon if you
> > use SSL
> > for example. Just a thought.
> >
> >
> >
> > I liked the idea!
> >
> > We could add status boxes in front of the information "Retrieving
> > details ...".
> >
> > For example, suppose that is the status bar:
> >
> > With 3 status boxes:
> >
> > || "Retrieving details on schema.table" || user(at)database || server ||
> >
> > or with 2 status boxes:
> >
> > || "Retrieving details on schema.table" || user(at)database ( server )
> > ||
> >
> >
>
> I think I like the second one better, but this is just my opinion.
>

Aside from it being a needless amount of information to clutter the display
with, I can pretty much guarantee you won't be able to figure out a clean
way of sizing the panels to accomodate all that data without truncating one
or more of them for some selected objects.

I suspect I will end up objecting strongly to any patch that tries do do
what's being discussed.

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

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

On Sat, 2012-07-14 at 18:57 +0100, Dave Page wrote:
>
>
> On Saturday, July 14, 2012, Guillaume Lelarge wrote:
> On Sat, 2012-07-14 at 11:28 -0300, Vinicius Santos wrote:
> >
> > Not sure I like the point either. We don't have that
> notation
> > on
> > PostgreSQL. I think I would prefer something like
> "Retrieving
> > details on
> > table schema.table" and not say the database.
> Because if you
> > add the
> > database, someone will probably want also the
> server. It may
> > not be
> > usefull to you, but it'll come at some point. And
> that's quite
> > a lot of
> > informations.
> >
> > I agree.
> >
> >
> >
> > Probably we could add some status boxes in the
> status bar. For
> > exemple,
> > a box with a "user(at)database (server)" (with a lock
> icon if you
> > use SSL
> > for example. Just a thought.
> >
> >
> >
> > I liked the idea!
> >
> > We could add status boxes in front of the information
> "Retrieving
> > details ...".
> >
> > For example, suppose that is the status bar:
> >
> > With 3 status boxes:
> >
> > || "Retrieving details on schema.table" || user(at)database ||
> server ||
> >
> > or with 2 status boxes:
> >
> > || "Retrieving details on schema.table" || user(at)database
> ( server )
> > ||
> >
> >
>
> I think I like the second one better, but this is just my
> opinion.
>
>
> Aside from it being a needless amount of information to clutter the
> display with, I can pretty much guarantee you won't be able to figure
> out a clean way of sizing the panels to accomodate all that data
> without truncating one or more of them for some selected objects.
>

Are we talking about the same thing? I'm not suggesting to add a panel.
I'm suggesting to add another box in the status bar (wxStatusBar
object). It won't take any more space than before.

--
Guillaume
http://blog.guillaume.lelarge.info
http://www.dalibo.com

On Saturday, July 14, 2012, Guillaume Lelarge wrote:

> On Sat, 2012-07-14 at 18:57 +0100, Dave Page wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Saturday, July 14, 2012, Guillaume Lelarge wrote:
> > On Sat, 2012-07-14 at 11:28 -0300, Vinicius Santos wrote:
> > >
> > > Not sure I like the point either. We don't have that
> > notation
> > > on
> > > PostgreSQL. I think I would prefer something like
> > "Retrieving
> > > details on
> > > table schema.table" and not say the database.
> > Because if you
> > > add the
> > > database, someone will probably want also the
> > server. It may
> > > not be
> > > usefull to you, but it'll come at some point. And
> > that's quite
> > > a lot of
> > > informations.
> > >
> > > I agree.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Probably we could add some status boxes in the
> > status bar. For
> > > exemple,
> > > a box with a "user(at)database (server)" (with a lock
> > icon if you
> > > use SSL
> > > for example. Just a thought.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I liked the idea!
> > >
> > > We could add status boxes in front of the information
> > "Retrieving
> > > details ...".
> > >
> > > For example, suppose that is the status bar:
> > >
> > > With 3 status boxes:
> > >
> > > || "Retrieving details on schema.table" || user(at)database ||
> > server ||
> > >
> > > or with 2 status boxes:
> > >
> > > || "Retrieving details on schema.table" || user(at)database
> > ( server )
> > > ||
> > >
> > >
> >
> > I think I like the second one better, but this is just my
> > opinion.
> >
> >
> > Aside from it being a needless amount of information to clutter the
> > display with, I can pretty much guarantee you won't be able to figure
> > out a clean way of sizing the panels to accomodate all that data
> > without truncating one or more of them for some selected objects.
> >
>
> Are we talking about the same thing? I'm not suggesting to add a panel.
> I'm suggesting to add another box in the status bar (wxStatusBar
> object). It won't take any more space than before.
>

The bar won't, but the text in it will.

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

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

On Sat, 2012-07-14 at 20:48 +0100, Dave Page wrote:
>
>
> On Saturday, July 14, 2012, Guillaume Lelarge wrote:
> On Sat, 2012-07-14 at 18:57 +0100, Dave Page wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Saturday, July 14, 2012, Guillaume Lelarge wrote:
> > On Sat, 2012-07-14 at 11:28 -0300, Vinicius Santos
> wrote:
> > >
> > > Not sure I like the point either. We don't
> have that
> > notation
> > > on
> > > PostgreSQL. I think I would prefer
> something like
> > "Retrieving
> > > details on
> > > table schema.table" and not say the
> database.
> > Because if you
> > > add the
> > > database, someone will probably want also
> the
> > server. It may
> > > not be
> > > usefull to you, but it'll come at some
> point. And
> > that's quite
> > > a lot of
> > > informations.
> > >
> > > I agree.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Probably we could add some status boxes in
> the
> > status bar. For
> > > exemple,
> > > a box with a "user(at)database
> (server)" (with a lock
> > icon if you
> > > use SSL
> > > for example. Just a thought.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I liked the idea!
> > >
> > > We could add status boxes in front of the
> information
> > "Retrieving
> > > details ...".
> > >
> > > For example, suppose that is the status bar:
> > >
> > > With 3 status boxes:
> > >
> > > || "Retrieving details on schema.table" ||
> user(at)database ||
> > server ||
> > >
> > > or with 2 status boxes:
> > >
> > > || "Retrieving details on schema.table" ||
> user(at)database
> > ( server )
> > > ||
> > >
> > >
> >
> > I think I like the second one better, but this is
> just my
> > opinion.
> >
> >
> > Aside from it being a needless amount of information to
> clutter the
> > display with, I can pretty much guarantee you won't be able
> to figure
> > out a clean way of sizing the panels to accomodate all that
> data
> > without truncating one or more of them for some selected
> objects.
> >
>
> Are we talking about the same thing? I'm not suggesting to add
> a panel.
> I'm suggesting to add another box in the status bar
> (wxStatusBar
> object). It won't take any more space than before.
>
>
> The bar won't, but the text in it will.
>

Yes, and? I don't see how that could be much of a problem.

--
Guillaume
http://blog.guillaume.lelarge.info
http://www.dalibo.com

On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 10:22 PM, Guillaume Lelarge
<guillaume(at)lelarge(dot)info> wrote:
> On Sat, 2012-07-14 at 20:48 +0100, Dave Page wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Saturday, July 14, 2012, Guillaume Lelarge wrote:
>> On Sat, 2012-07-14 at 18:57 +0100, Dave Page wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > On Saturday, July 14, 2012, Guillaume Lelarge wrote:
>> > On Sat, 2012-07-14 at 11:28 -0300, Vinicius Santos
>> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > Not sure I like the point either. We don't
>> have that
>> > notation
>> > > on
>> > > PostgreSQL. I think I would prefer
>> something like
>> > "Retrieving
>> > > details on
>> > > table schema.table" and not say the
>> database.
>> > Because if you
>> > > add the
>> > > database, someone will probably want also
>> the
>> > server. It may
>> > > not be
>> > > usefull to you, but it'll come at some
>> point. And
>> > that's quite
>> > > a lot of
>> > > informations.
>> > >
>> > > I agree.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > Probably we could add some status boxes in
>> the
>> > status bar. For
>> > > exemple,
>> > > a box with a "user(at)database
>> (server)" (with a lock
>> > icon if you
>> > > use SSL
>> > > for example. Just a thought.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > I liked the idea!
>> > >
>> > > We could add status boxes in front of the
>> information
>> > "Retrieving
>> > > details ...".
>> > >
>> > > For example, suppose that is the status bar:
>> > >
>> > > With 3 status boxes:
>> > >
>> > > || "Retrieving details on schema.table" ||
>> user(at)database ||
>> > server ||
>> > >
>> > > or with 2 status boxes:
>> > >
>> > > || "Retrieving details on schema.table" ||
>> user(at)database
>> > ( server )
>> > > ||
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>> > I think I like the second one better, but this is
>> just my
>> > opinion.
>> >
>> >
>> > Aside from it being a needless amount of information to
>> clutter the
>> > display with, I can pretty much guarantee you won't be able
>> to figure
>> > out a clean way of sizing the panels to accomodate all that
>> data
>> > without truncating one or more of them for some selected
>> objects.
>> >
>>
>> Are we talking about the same thing? I'm not suggesting to add
>> a panel.
>> I'm suggesting to add another box in the status bar
>> (wxStatusBar
>> object). It won't take any more space than before.
>>
>>
>> The bar won't, but the text in it will.
>>
>
> Yes, and? I don't see how that could be much of a problem.

You'll end up with a bunch of truncated text labels making the status
bar look busy, overly complex and distracting, and not necessarily
conveying the information it's trying to. Resizing won't help as you
can only have one "sprung" pane on some (all?) platforms and that
needs to be the one displaying the status messages (which we do not
want to be truncated either).

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

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

Attached.

I think the information "user(at)database ( server )" is important.

I tested on Windows 7.
I'll test on Ubuntu tonight.

On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 5:24 PM, Vinicius Santos
<vinicius(dot)santos(dot)lista(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Attached.
>
> I think the information "user(at)database ( server )" is important.
>
> I tested on Windows 7.
> I'll test on Ubuntu tonight.

I have no idea how you managed to get that to compile on Windows:

./schema/edbSynonym.cpp: In member function ‘virtual wxString
edbSynonym::GetTranslatedMessage(int) const’:
./schema/edbSynonym.cpp:33: error: invalid use of incomplete type
‘struct pgSchema’
../pgadmin/include/utils/factory.h:31: error: forward declaration of
‘struct pgSchema’
./schema/edbSynonym.cpp:37: error: invalid use of incomplete type
‘struct pgSchema’
../pgadmin/include/utils/factory.h:31: error: forward declaration of
‘struct pgSchema’
make[3]: *** [edbSynonym.o] Error 1
make[3]: *** Waiting for unfinished jobs....
./schema/pgCast.cpp: In member function ‘virtual wxString
pgCast::GetTranslatedMessage(int) const’:
./schema/pgCast.cpp:38: error: invalid use of incomplete type ‘struct pgSchema’
../pgadmin/include/utils/factory.h:31: error: forward declaration of
‘struct pgSchema’
./schema/pgCast.cpp:42: error: invalid use of incomplete type ‘struct pgSchema’
../pgadmin/include/utils/factory.h:31: error: forward declaration of
‘struct pgSchema’
make[3]: *** [pgCast.o] Error 1

Which is entirely expected as both public synonyms and casts are
database level objects and thus don't have pgSchema as a parent class.

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

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

>
> Which is entirely expected as both public synonyms and casts are
> database level objects and thus don't have pgSchema as a parent class.
>
>
I forgot to check the pgCast. Sorry

I'll fix it and resubmit.

I fixed the problems.

I removed the implementation on EnterpriseDB items, because I don't have
how to test it. Can you help to test it?

I tested on Windows 7 and Ubuntu.

On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 1:50 AM, Vinicius Santos
<vinicius(dot)santos(dot)lista(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> I fixed the problems.

That's better.

> I removed the implementation on EnterpriseDB items, because I don't have how
> to test it. Can you help to test it?

I can test the PPAS stuff, but not the Greenplum objects. But... they
shouldn't be an issue - if an object is derived from pgSchema, you can
(and should use GetSchema(). If it's derived from a pgTable, you
probably want the table name too. If it's derived from pgObject,
pgServer, pgDatabase, then there's no schema available.

> I tested on Windows 7 and Ubuntu.

I noted a few problems.

- First, the patch exhibits exactly the problem I was talking about.
See the attached screenshot, which is just a mess. All of the names
(server, object, username etc) are real. None are made up. And yes,
despite what Microsoft seem to be wanting people to do from Windows 8
onwards, I usually don't have full screen windows, but tend to work
with smaller ones side-by-side.

- Not only do I see truncated names, but more importantly the "Done."
is not visible. That is *essential*, for obvious reasons.

- We try to avoid referring to servers by their hostname/IP address in
the UI (anywhere we do, is an oversight). You should be showing the
name. In my case, for remote servers that tends to be the hostname
anyway. For local servers though, it's usually a string like
"PostgreSQL 9.1" or "Postgres Plus Advanced Server 9.1". The reasoning
is that the name is a memorable string that the user can easily
recognise, whilst the hostname or IP address usually isn't (for
example, Amazon EC2 hostnames - which of course, are also very long).

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

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

>
> I can test the PPAS stuff, but not the Greenplum objects. But... they
> shouldn't be an issue - if an object is derived from pgSchema, you can
> (and should use GetSchema(). If it's derived from a pgTable, you
> probably want the table name too. If it's derived from pgObject,
> pgServer, pgDatabase, then there's no schema available.
>

Ok. No problems here.

- First, the patch exhibits exactly the problem I was talking about.
> See the attached screenshot, which is just a mess. All of the names
> (server, object, username etc) are real. None are made up. And yes,
> despite what Microsoft seem to be wanting people to do from Windows 8
> onwards, I usually don't have full screen windows, but tend to work
> with smaller ones side-by-side.
>

Really. Your servers have very long names. This should happen only at lower
resolutions.

And if we put a configuration option? The user decides if he wants this
option or not.

Or to put this information somewhere else, but where?

> - Not only do I see truncated names, but more importantly the "Done."
> is not visible. That is *essential*, for obvious reasons.
>

Yes, I agree.

>
> - We try to avoid referring to servers by their hostname/IP address in
> the UI (anywhere we do, is an oversight). You should be showing the
> name. In my case, for remote servers that tends to be the hostname
> anyway. For local servers though, it's usually a string like
> "PostgreSQL 9.1" or "Postgres Plus Advanced Server 9.1". The reasoning
> is that the name is a memorable string that the user can easily
> recognise, whilst the hostname or IP address usually isn't (for
> example, Amazon EC2 hostnames - which of course, are also very long).
>

Here, also without problems. I agree too.

On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 1:50 PM, Vinicius Santos
<vinicius(dot)santos(dot)lista(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> Really. Your servers have very long names. This should happen only at lower
> resolutions.

Not really. The panel you've used for the server name is fixed width.
As I mentioned before, on some, if not all platforms, you can only
have 1 variable width panel. That's one of the reasons we've avoided
putting extra info in there before, that isn't a clearly defined
width.

> And if we put a configuration option? The user decides if he wants this
> option or not.
>
> Or to put this information somewhere else, but where?

It is somewhere else already. You can see it from the treeview - which
is why I think it's redundant anyway. The fact that noone else has
ever complained (that I can recall) also suggests it's not an issue
for others.

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

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

>
> Not really. The panel you've used for the server name is fixed width.
> As I mentioned before, on some, if not all platforms, you can only
> have 1 variable width panel. That's one of the reasons we've avoided
> putting extra info in there before, that isn't a clearly defined
> width.
>

It's true. You're right.

> It is somewhere else already. You can see it from the treeview - which
> is why I think it's redundant anyway. The fact that noone else has
> ever complained (that I can recall) also suggests it's not an issue
> for others.
>

I agree that isn't an issue, but I think that this feature would facilitate a
bit when you have multiple objects.

But, this implementation will really cause an issue. So is better not to do.

On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 2:13 PM, Vinicius Santos
<vinicius(dot)santos(dot)lista(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> Not really. The panel you've used for the server name is fixed width.
>> As I mentioned before, on some, if not all platforms, you can only
>> have 1 variable width panel. That's one of the reasons we've avoided
>> putting extra info in there before, that isn't a clearly defined
>> width.
>
>
> It's true. You're right.
>
>>
>> It is somewhere else already. You can see it from the treeview - which
>> is why I think it's redundant anyway. The fact that noone else has
>> ever complained (that I can recall) also suggests it's not an issue
>> for others.
>
>
> I agree that isn't an issue, but I think that this feature would facilitate
> a bit when you have multiple objects.
>
> But, this implementation will really cause an issue. So is better not to do.

One alternative option might be to have an extra wxAUI menubar panel,
with a couple of textlabels on it. That could be moved around and
hidden or shown in the same way we do for the menu bar (or the
database selection bar on the query tool).

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

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

>
> One alternative option might be to have an extra wxAUI menubar panel,
> with a couple of textlabels on it. That could be moved around and
> hidden or shown in the same way we do for the menu bar (or the
> database selection bar on the query tool).
>

Good ideia.
I can do. Then we see if it improved.

On Wed, 2012-07-18 at 10:41 -0300, Vinicius Santos wrote:
>
> One alternative option might be to have an extra wxAUI menubar
> panel,
> with a couple of textlabels on it. That could be moved around
> and
> hidden or shown in the same way we do for the menu bar (or the
> database selection bar on the query tool).
>
> Good ideia.
> I can do. Then we see if it improved.

I'm skeptical, but we'll see.

How about the window's title bar? we already use that for the query
tool.

--
Guillaume
http://blog.guillaume.lelarge.info
http://www.dalibo.com

Hello,

I don't think it's cool. But I think the information is important, even
though the same information is in the treeview.
If I don't find an elegant way to do this, I think better give up.
What do you think?

We can also do so. On caption.

On Tue, 2012-07-24 at 01:02 -0300, Vinicius Santos wrote:
> We can also do so. On caption.
>
>

I much prefer what you call "on caption" (I call it the title bar).
That's already what we do with the query tool.

--
Guillaume
http://blog.guillaume.lelarge.info
http://www.dalibo.com

>
>
> I much prefer what you call "on caption" (I call it the title bar).
>

I called it as "on caption" because of my habit with Delphi.
It is the title bar really

> That's already what we do with the query tool.
>

So, I'll send the patch in the title bar, for you to give a look.

Hello,

I finished the patch. It works fine on Windows 7, but the
SetLabel(wxString) doesn't work on my Ubuntu.
I did make some simple tests with the wxWidgets on Ubuntu, but I can't do
it to work.

Can you help-me with the test on Linux?

Thanks.

On Thu, 2012-07-26 at 12:37 -0300, Vinicius Santos wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I finished the patch. It works fine on Windows 7, but the
> SetLabel(wxString) doesn't work on my Ubuntu.
> I did make some simple tests with the wxWidgets on Ubuntu, but I can't do
> it to work.
>
> Can you help-me with the test on Linux?
>

Got some time to work on this. SetLabel is useful for widgets, not for
windows. Change your call to the SetLabel() method with a call to
SetTitle(). Works great for me on Linux. Don't know on Windows, maybe
you could check?

About your patch, it seems good so far. My only issue is that, when I
click on the root node, or on a servers group node, it still displays
the old connection string. It shouldn't. It should get back to "pgAdmin
III".

Another thing that bugs me. To show the full name of an object, you use
this code:

GetSchema()->GetName() + wxT(".") + GetName()

instead of the simpler:

GetFullIdentifier()

Please change this.

Once all of this have been done, I'll review it one more time, and apply
it if ready.

Thanks.

--
Guillaume
http://blog.guillaume.lelarge.info
http://www.dalibo.com

>
> Got some time to work on this. SetLabel is useful for widgets, not for
> windows. Change your call to the SetLabel() method with a call to
> SetTitle(). Works great for me on Linux. Don't know on Windows, maybe
> you could check?
>

Yes. Of course.

>
> About your patch, it seems good so far. My only issue is that, when I
> click on the root node, or on a servers group node, it still displays
> the old connection string. It shouldn't. It should get back to "pgAdmin
> III".
>

OK. It's true.

>
> Another thing that bugs me. To show the full name of an object, you use
> this code:
>
> GetSchema()->GetName() + wxT(".") + GetName()
>
> instead of the simpler:
>
> GetFullIdentifier()
>

OK. I'll make the changes.

Thanks!

> Got some time to work on this. SetLabel is useful for widgets, not for
> windows. Change your call to the SetLabel() method with a call to
> SetTitle(). Works great for me on Linux. Don't know on Windows, maybe
> you could check?
>

OK. I changed it.

>
> About your patch, it seems good so far. My only issue is that, when I
> click on the root node, or on a servers group node, it still displays
> the old connection string. It shouldn't. It should get back to "pgAdmin
> III".
>

Here, I would like the opinion of you.

When the user clicks on the "Database" node, the pgAdmin is connected to
the database "postgres".
So, would not it be interesting to show this information?

>
> Another thing that bugs me. To show the full name of an object, you use
> this code:
>
> GetSchema()->GetName() + wxT(".") + GetName()
>
> instead of the simpler:
>
> GetFullIdentifier()
>

GetFullIdentifier() doesn't show the same information.

We can't change it, because it is used in several other places.

On Tue, 2012-09-11 at 12:20 -0300, Vinicius Santos wrote:
>
>
> Got some time to work on this. SetLabel is useful for widgets,
> not for
> windows. Change your call to the SetLabel() method with a call
> to
> SetTitle(). Works great for me on Linux. Don't know on
> Windows, maybe
> you could check?
>
> OK. I changed it.
>
>
> About your patch, it seems good so far. My only issue is that,
> when I
> click on the root node, or on a servers group node, it still
> displays
> the old connection string. It shouldn't. It should get back to
> "pgAdmin
> III".
>
> Here, I would like the opinion of you.
>
> When the user clicks on the "Database" node, the pgAdmin is connected
> to the database "postgres".
> So, would not it be interesting to show this information?
>

Well, as far as I know, pgadmin could be connected to many databases. It
should only display the connection it used to get the informations on
the selected object.

>
>
> Another thing that bugs me. To show the full name of an
> object, you use
> this code:
>
> GetSchema()->GetName() + wxT(".") + GetName()
>
> instead of the simpler:
>
> GetFullIdentifier()
>
> GetFullIdentifier() doesn't show the same information.
>
>
> We can't change it, because it is used in several other places.

Are you sure?

--
Guillaume
http://blog.guillaume.lelarge.info
http://www.dalibo.com

>
> Well, as far as I know, pgadmin could be connected to many databases. It
> should only display the connection it used to get the informations on
> the selected object.
>

Thinking so, I think you have reason.

>
> Are you sure?
>

Yes. GetFullIdentifier() doesn't return the schema.

On Tue, 2012-09-11 at 15:49 -0300, Vinicius Santos wrote:
> Well, as far as I know, pgadmin could be connected to many
> databases. It
> should only display the connection it used to get the
> informations on
> the selected object.
>
> Thinking so, I think you have reason.
>

Thanks.

>
>
> Are you sure?
>
> Yes. GetFullIdentifier() doesn't return the schema.

It doesn't return the schema when the schema belongs to your
search_path. That's the right way to do it.

--
Guillaume
http://blog.guillaume.lelarge.info
http://www.dalibo.com

> It doesn't return the schema when the schema belongs to your
> search_path. That's the right way to do it.
>

OK. But we must always show the scheme in this context.

We can create another function too.

What do you think about this?