https://codereview.appspot.com/7132061/diff/6001/app/app.js File app/app.js (right): https://codereview.appspot.com/7132061/diff/6001/app/app.js#newcode351 app/app.js:351: active.update(); On 2013/01/20 15:58:45, gary.poster wrote: > cool Thanks, cutting to this should actually be a big improvement. I was worried there would still be more work left before this would work properly but it seems fine like this. This cuts the number of render passes substantially and reduces the amount of work we do quite a lot. https://codereview.appspot.com/7132061/diff/6001/app/views/topology/service.js File app/views/topology/service.js (right): https://codereview.appspot.com/7132061/diff/6001/app/views/topology/service.js#newcode33 app/views/topology/service.js:33: * relation. On 2013/01/20 15:58:45, gary.poster wrote: > We now have this comment both in the event registration and in the function > definition. I'm not sure that inline event handler functions don't have their > place, to be honest. If we do separate them, I think we can only expect to > maintain comments in one place. I believe that the place should be the > function, so I would recommend deleting this copy of the comment. Agreed with comment placement, this was the result of trying to quickly cut a smaller branch, bad porting. https://codereview.appspot.com/7132061/diff/6001/app/views/topology/service.js#newcode65 app/views/topology/service.js:65: toggleControlPanel: {callback: function() { On 2013/01/20 15:58:45, gary.poster wrote: > I prefer the change that Nicola made, that you have reverted. In that change, > he renamed "ControlPanel" to "ServiceMenu," which seemed like a naming > improvement to Nicola and to his two reviewers. He also was able to be explicit > that we only needed to "hide" here, which would be nice if we can manage it. Not intentional, this is how the trunk merge fell out. I'll restore his version (which I had a hand in as well and agreed with). https://codereview.appspot.com/7132061/diff/6001/app/views/topology/service.js#newcode178 app/views/topology/service.js:178: self.service_click_actions.toggleControlPanel(null, self); On 2013/01/20 15:58:45, gary.poster wrote: > You've reverted Nicola's changes. I think they were improvements, but even if > you disagree, socially a discussion would be better. Please don't do this. Bad Merge, fixed. https://codereview.appspot.com/7132061/diff/6001/app/views/topology/service.js#newcode201 app/views/topology/service.js:201: .toggleControlPanel(box, context); On 2013/01/20 15:58:45, gary.poster wrote: > You've reverted Nicola's changes. Please don't do this. Same https://codereview.appspot.com/7132061/diff/6001/test/test_environment_view.js File test/test_environment_view.js (right): https://codereview.appspot.com/7132061/diff/6001/test/test_environment_view.js#newcode112 test/test_environment_view.js:112: db.on_delta({data: Y.clone(environment_delta)}); This change may be worth of review comment. This is needed because we delete annotations once their x/y has been read and applied. This creates an issue in testing because its a reference all the way back to the original test data stub. https://codereview.appspot.com/7132061/diff/6001/undocumented File undocumented (left): https://codereview.appspot.com/7132061/diff/6001/undocumented#oldcode1 undocumented:1: app/app.js:599 "callback" On 2013/01/20 15:58:45, gary.poster wrote: > You increased the undocumented count from 241 to 246. It would be nice if we at > least kept the number stable across these refactorings. Given my desire to be > able to declare this complete by Monday, or Tuesday at the latest, I won't stop > you from landing for this, but maybe you could come back to write up five > methods later. Added some doc strings, I think documenting callback handlers with a full doc strings when they have uniform arguments and appeal to a documented usage pattern is a bit of an anti-pattern (not that this is the only type of doc I haven't written ;) . Happy to talk about this in a Friday call if its an issue. https://codereview.appspot.com/7132061/