From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [IPv6:2a01:7e0:0:424::9]) by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 418421FF13A for ; Wed, 01 Apr 2026 10:03:09 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id A36EA12E8B; Wed, 1 Apr 2026 10:01:18 +0200 (CEST) From: Arthur Bied-Charreton To: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com Subject: [PATCH pve-manager v2 14/17] ui: VMCPUFlagSelector: Fix buffered rendering error Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2026 10:00:25 +0200 Message-ID: <20260401080028.62513-15-a.bied-charreton@proxmox.com> X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.47.3 In-Reply-To: <20260401080028.62513-1-a.bied-charreton@proxmox.com> References: <20260401080028.62513-1-a.bied-charreton@proxmox.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL -0.268 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 KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY 1 Sending domain does not have any anti-forgery methods POISEN_SPAM_PILL 0.1 Meta: its spam POISEN_SPAM_PILL_1 0.1 random spam to be learned in bayes POISEN_SPAM_PILL_3 0.1 random spam to be learned in bayes RDNS_NONE 0.793 Delivered to internal network by a host with no rDNS SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record SPF_NONE 0.001 SPF: sender does not publish an SPF Record Message-ID-Hash: UOLYKDWXUPGPSZ3ZTDN3UMEFDGCKTXXV X-Message-ID-Hash: UOLYKDWXUPGPSZ3ZTDN3UMEFDGCKTXXV X-MailFrom: abied-charreton@jett.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: When the flags are queried from /cluster/qemu/cpu-flags, Ext.js uses buffered rendering, and we have to use a different helper to refresh the view [0][1]. Not doing so creates random-looking rendering errors, in this case the radio group was missing from random flags, changing every time the buffer would be re-rendered. [0] https://docs.sencha.com/extjs/6.2.0/classic/Ext.view.AbstractView.html#method-refresh [1] https://docs.sencha.com/extjs/6.2.0/classic/Ext.grid.plugin.BufferedRenderer.html#method-refreshView Signed-off-by: Arthur Bied-Charreton --- www/manager6/form/VMCPUFlagSelector.js | 15 ++++++++++++++- 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/www/manager6/form/VMCPUFlagSelector.js b/www/manager6/form/VMCPUFlagSelector.js index b857c134..cbd6e2c7 100644 --- a/www/manager6/form/VMCPUFlagSelector.js +++ b/www/manager6/form/VMCPUFlagSelector.js @@ -141,7 +141,20 @@ Ext.define('PVE.form.VMCPUFlagSelector', { store.insert(0, newUnknownFlags); } - me.getView().refresh(); + // Ext.js uses buffered renderers for larger lists, i.e. in this case, the flags + // queried from /cluster/qemu/cpu-flags, which returns all possible QEMU flags. In + // this case, we cannot use AbstractView.refresh [0] and have to fall back to + // BufferedRendrer.refreshView [1], otherwise we get interesting rendering errors, in + // this case radio groups missing from random flags. + // + // [0] https://docs.sencha.com/extjs/6.2.0/classic/Ext.view.AbstractView.html#method-refresh + // [1] https://docs.sencha.com/extjs/6.2.0/classic/Ext.grid.plugin.BufferedRenderer.html#method-refreshView + let plugin = me.findPlugin('bufferedrenderer'); + if (plugin === undefined) { + me.getView().refresh(); + } else { + plugin.refreshView(); + } }, isDirty: function () { let me = this; -- 2.47.3