From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [212.224.123.68]) by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4A2C31FF14C for ; Fri, 15 May 2026 09:01:29 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id CDE37D9A8; Fri, 15 May 2026 09:01:27 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <0b1f1316-dfb4-427c-a7a2-c5d6d5db0a9f@proxmox.com> Date: Fri, 15 May 2026 09:00:44 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Beta Subject: Re: [PATCH pve-manager] fix #6348: ui: bulk action: use tag style full To: Erik Fastermann , pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com References: <20260513112500.149685-1-e.fastermann@proxmox.com> Content-Language: en-US From: Dominik Csapak In-Reply-To: <20260513112500.149685-1-e.fastermann@proxmox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Bm-Milter-Handled: 55990f41-d878-4baa-be0a-ee34c49e34d2 X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp: 1778828447106 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.050 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address BAYES_00 -1.9 Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% DMARC_MISSING 0.1 Missing DMARC policy KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record Message-ID-Hash: BQ6CQFOBCBEXWOJTLGF5FDLUE6O26P5I X-Message-ID-Hash: BQ6CQFOBCBEXWOJTLGF5FDLUE6O26P5I X-MailFrom: d.csapak@proxmox.com X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; loop; banned-address; emergency; member-moderation; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.10 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion List-Help: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Hi, IMO this does not really fix the bug since it was opened for applying the tree style to the remaining view. The problem here is that we don't have much space, and on systems with many tags it is less clear which ones are there, since they simply get cut off. This was the reason why mulitple styles were implemented in the first place; if someone has just a few tags, the full style can be fine, but with e.g. 5+ tags per vm this gets overwhelming fast and a simple 'color' view can be better. So instead of using always full here, i'd still probably opt for re-using the tree style here. If there are more places we apply this style to, we could even rename it to simply "tag style" (at least in the ui) On 5/13/26 1:25 PM, Erik Fastermann wrote: > Use the tag style full in the bulk action table to bring this component > more in line with the rest of the GUI. > > Not using the tree config option, since the other components also have > the tag style hardcoded to full. This is the simplest change for now > and should solve the user's initial problem. > > Signed-off-by: Erik Fastermann > --- > www/manager6/form/VMSelector.js | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/www/manager6/form/VMSelector.js b/www/manager6/form/VMSelector.js > index 57aa73a7..a7133522 100644 > --- a/www/manager6/form/VMSelector.js > +++ b/www/manager6/form/VMSelector.js > @@ -18,7 +18,7 @@ Ext.define('PVE.form.VMSelector', { > sorters: 'vmid', > }, > > - userCls: 'proxmox-tags-circle', > + userCls: 'proxmox-tags-full', > > columnsDeclaration: [ > {