Fixed redundant i18n strings in json

On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 2:59 PM, Daniele Varrazzo
<daniele.varrazzo@gmail.com> wrote:

Please find attached a small tweak to a couple of strings found while
updating translations. The %d version is already used elsewhere in the
same file.

Probably not a bad idea, but aren't these strings pretty awful anyway?
At a minimum, "arg" as an abbreviation for "argument" doesn't seem
good.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

I'd definitely replace /arg/argument/. Furthermore I'd avoid the form
"argument 1: something is wrong": the string is likely to end up in
sentences with other colons so I'd rather use "something is wrong at
argument 1".

Is the patch attached better?

Cheers,

-- Daniele

On Sat, Aug 2, 2014 at 9:15 AM, Daniele Varrazzo
<daniele.varrazzo@gmail.com> wrote:

I'd definitely replace /arg/argument/. Furthermore I'd avoid the form
"argument 1: something is wrong": the string is likely to end up in
sentences with other colons so I'd rather use "something is wrong at
argument 1".

Is the patch attached better?

Looks OK to me. I thought someone else might comment, but since no
one has, committed.

(As a note for the future, you forgot to update the regression test
outputs; I took care of that before committing.)

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Aug 5, 2014 at 9:35 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:

On Sat, Aug 2, 2014 at 9:15 AM, Daniele Varrazzo
<daniele.varrazzo@gmail.com> wrote:

I'd definitely replace /arg/argument/. Furthermore I'd avoid the form
"argument 1: something is wrong": the string is likely to end up in
sentences with other colons so I'd rather use "something is wrong at
argument 1".

Is the patch attached better?

Looks OK to me. I thought someone else might comment, but since no
one has, committed.

(As a note for the future, you forgot to update the regression test
outputs; I took care of that before committing.)

I think you missed one of the regression tests, see attached

Thanks,

Jeff

On Tue, Aug 5, 2014 at 6:05 PM, Jeff Janes <jeff.janes@gmail.com> wrote:

I think you missed one of the regression tests, see attached

Woops. Thanks, committed.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 8:35 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:

On Tue, Aug 5, 2014 at 6:05 PM, Jeff Janes <jeff.janes@gmail.com> wrote:

I think you missed one of the regression tests, see attached

Woops. Thanks, committed.

Thanks.

It needs to go into 9_4_STABLE as well.

Cheers,

Jeff

On Thu, Aug 7, 2014 at 8:20 AM, Jeff Janes <jeff.janes@gmail.com> wrote:

It needs to go into 9_4_STABLE as well.

It is worth noticing that the buildfarm is completely in red because
this patch was not backpatched to REL9_4_STABLE:
http://buildfarm.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/show_status.pl
Regards,
--
Michael

--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 7:20 PM, Jeff Janes <jeff.janes@gmail.com> wrote:

On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 8:35 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:

On Tue, Aug 5, 2014 at 6:05 PM, Jeff Janes <jeff.janes@gmail.com> wrote:

I think you missed one of the regression tests, see attached

Woops. Thanks, committed.

Thanks.

It needs to go into 9_4_STABLE as well.

Sheesh, where is my brain? Done, thanks.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:

On Sat, Aug 2, 2014 at 9:15 AM, Daniele Varrazzo
<daniele.varrazzo@gmail.com> wrote:

I'd definitely replace /arg/argument/. Furthermore I'd avoid the form
"argument 1: something is wrong": the string is likely to end up in
sentences with other colons so I'd rather use "something is wrong at
argument 1".

Is the patch attached better?

Looks OK to me. I thought someone else might comment, but since no
one has, committed.

It looks to me like this is still wrong:

    if (nargs % 2 != 0)
        ereport(ERROR,
                (errcode(ERRCODE_INVALID_PARAMETER_VALUE),
-                errmsg("invalid number or arguments: object must be matched key value pairs")));
+                errmsg("invalid number or arguments"),
+                errhint("Object must be matched key value pairs.")));

Surely that was meant to read "invalid number OF arguments".  The errhint
is only charitably described as English, as well.  I'd suggest something
like "Arguments of json_build_object() must be pairs of keys and values."
--- but maybe someone else can phrase that better.

regards, tom lane

--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

Tom Lane-2 wrote

Robert Haas &lt;

robertmhaas@

&gt; writes:

On Sat, Aug 2, 2014 at 9:15 AM, Daniele Varrazzo
&lt;

daniele.varrazzo@

&gt; wrote:

I'd definitely replace /arg/argument/. Furthermore I'd avoid the form
"argument 1: something is wrong": the string is likely to end up in
sentences with other colons so I'd rather use "something is wrong at
argument 1".

Is the patch attached better?

Looks OK to me. I thought someone else might comment, but since no
one has, committed.

It looks to me like this is still wrong:

if (nargs % 2 != 0)
ereport(ERROR,
(errcode(ERRCODE_INVALID_PARAMETER_VALUE),
-                errmsg("invalid number or arguments: object must be
matched key value pairs")));
+                errmsg("invalid number or arguments"),
+                errhint("Object must be matched key value pairs.")));

Surely that was meant to read "invalid number OF arguments".  The errhint
is only charitably described as English, as well.  I'd suggest something
like "Arguments of json_build_object() must be pairs of keys and values."
--- but maybe someone else can phrase that better.

The user documentation is worth emulating here:

http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.4/interactive/functions-json.html

errmsg("argument count must be divisible by 2")
errhint("The argument list consists of alternating names and values")

Note that I s/keys/names/ to match said documentation.

David J.

--
View this message in context: http://postgresql.1045698.n5.nabble.com/Fixed-redundant-i18n-strings-in-json-tp5813330p5814122.html
Sent from the PostgreSQL - hackers mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

David G Johnston <david.g.johnston@gmail.com> writes:

Tom Lane-2 wrote

Surely that was meant to read "invalid number OF arguments".  The errhint
is only charitably described as English, as well.  I'd suggest something
like "Arguments of json_build_object() must be pairs of keys and values."
--- but maybe someone else can phrase that better.

The user documentation is worth emulating here:
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.4/interactive/functions-json.html

errmsg("argument count must be divisible by 2")
errhint("The argument list consists of alternating names and values")

Seems reasonable to me.

Note that I s/keys/names/ to match said documentation.

Hm. The docs aren't too consistent either: there are several other nearby
places that say "keys". Notably, the functions json[b]_object_keys() have
that usage embedded in their names, where we can't readily change it.

I'm inclined to think we should s/names/keys/ in the docs instead.
Thoughts?

regards, tom lane

--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

On Thu, Aug 7, 2014 at 5:53 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:

David G Johnston <david.g.johnston@gmail.com> writes:

Tom Lane-2 wrote

Surely that was meant to read "invalid number OF arguments". The

errhint

is only charitably described as English, as well. I'd suggest something
like "Arguments of json_build_object() must be pairs of keys and

values."

--- but maybe someone else can phrase that better.

The user documentation is worth emulating here:
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.4/interactive/functions-json.html

errmsg("argument count must be divisible by 2")
errhint("The argument list consists of alternating names and values")

Seems reasonable to me.

Note that I s/keys/names/ to match said documentation.

Hm. The docs aren't too consistent either: there are several other nearby
places that say "keys". Notably, the functions json[b]_object_keys() have
that usage embedded in their names, where we can't readily change it.

I'm inclined to think we should s/names/keys/ in the docs instead.
Thoughts?

Agreed - have the docs match the common API term usage in our
implementation.

Not sure its worth a thorough hunt but at least fix them as they are
noticed.

David J.