Re: [WebERP-developers] TableRows()

[Andrew G. <aga...@re...>]

Would it be any different if the code was copied into an include instead of a function and we replaced the lines of code with
include('includes/tablerow.inc');

This is what we do with header.inc and footer.inc.  We don't repeat that code in every script (Thank goodness).

<OPINION>
I think a minimal level of abstraction would make changes less daunting.  If I know I can concentrate on business logic and not formatting I would be willing to make more enhancements.
Enhancements might also be done more quickly, tested faster and be more stable.  An example is a recent change to introduce location based security to WebERP that I submitted.  I had seen in the forums multiple times people looking to restrict access to locations within a particular business function.  Example Warehouse worked can see inventory levels at Location A but not Location B.  In order to make this change I had to modify  every script where there was a location selection list.
I had to modify the code as follows:
BEFORE: $sql = "SELECT loccode, locationname FROM locations
AFTER: $sql = "SELECT locations.loccode, locationname, canview FROM locations
                                INNER JOIN locationusers ON locationusers.loccode=locations.loccode AND locationusers.userid='" .  $_SESSION['UserID'] . "' AND locationusers.canview=1"

That line alone appears like 50+ times in 50+ files.  The same code to build the <select> takes around 15 lines of code before and after that SQL that is nearly identical in every script.
If all of that code was in an include file or in a function I could have added a feature people requested in less than 1 day instead of 5 days.  And testing it would have been a lot faster.  If the logic is in 1 place I can test my change in < 5 screens be confident it is working.  If I have to change 50 scripts I need to test all 50 scripts...Because even the smallest typo can make a script break.

Abstraction and reduced code can be a good thing
</OPINION>

Best Regards,
Andrew

From: Phil Daintree [mailto:ph...@lo...]
Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2014 1:25 AM
To: webERP Developers
Subject: Re: [WebERP-developers] TableRows()

Ricard,

There are many many ways to reduce the amount of code in webERP - we really could take loads out... but the sacrifice is readability - I don't believe we would gain speed/efficiency.
If we made the tables a class as per Jonathan's idea we could take out buckets of code - this would be the obvious extension of the
I don't want to change the code to increase abstraction ever - or code that does the same thing a different way that could potentially introduce new bugs. Nope - the effort should be not to reinvent what we have, but to add functionality using the same blocks and structure as we have.

I believe you learnt php from webERP - and are a living example as to why the phil-osophy behind webERP's development style is one of it's greatest strengths...


Phil



Phil Daintree

Logic Works Ltd - +64 (0)275 567890

http://www.logicworks.co.nz
On 02/09/14 13:12, Pak Ricard wrote:
Hi Phil:

I saw with satisfaction the commit 6859 where Rafael used the TableRows() functions in some scripts. Now, I saw this change was reverted, and I can't see but good things about it (probably i'm missing something).

These same 6 lines are repeated over and over webERP (probably over 100 times), so if we get a change to reduce the number of lines and still get a readable script, I think it's worth it.

Well just my 2 cents. I would love to know your POV (and any other developer's) about it :-)

Regards,
Ricard




------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Slashdot TV.

Video for Nerds.  Stuff that matters.

http://tv.slashdot.org/




_______________________________________________

Web-erp-developers mailing list

Web...@li...<mailto:Web...@li...>

https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/web-erp-developers