Re: [WebERP-developers] TableRows()

[Pak R. <pak...@gm...>]

Hi all:

Following on Andrew's POV, we calculate the demand of one item 10 times in
webERP and it takes 94 lines of code (if I'm not wrong).

I think it is a much readable script if we have a function called
CalculateDemandForItem ($StockId, $Location) and we encapsulate the 94
lines there.

Sharing Andrew's <OPINION>, we save 9 * 94 lines of repeated code and we
get a much readable script.

There are dozens of similar situations in webERP, where I think we can
improve readability and reduce the chances of bugs, as 1 fix fixes all.

Hope we can find a reasonable point where all feel comfortable.

Regards,
Ricard

2014-09-09 3:48 GMT+08:00 Andrew Galuski <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...
>
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/web-erp-developers
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Want excitement?
> Manually upgrade your production database.
> When you want reliability, choose Perforce
> Perforce version control. Predictably reliable.
>
> http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=157508191&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
> _______________________________________________
> Web-erp-developers mailing list
> Web...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/web-erp-developers
>
>