From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com> Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [212.224.123.68]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C10B97308E for <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 26 May 2021 19:16:08 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id B62A2165F9 for <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 26 May 2021 19:16:08 +0200 (CEST) Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (proxmox-new.maurer-it.com [94.136.29.106]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS id 506C1165E8 for <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 26 May 2021 19:16:04 +0200 (CEST) Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 23401466A1 for <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 26 May 2021 19:16:04 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <2d681e81-286c-11e4-1c3d-914e67bd8eb0@proxmox.com> Date: Wed, 26 May 2021 19:16:03 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:89.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/89.0 Content-Language: en-US To: Proxmox Backup Server development discussion <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>, Dominik Csapak <d.csapak@proxmox.com> References: <20210526134811.333-1-d.csapak@proxmox.com> From: Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com> In-Reply-To: <20210526134811.333-1-d.csapak@proxmox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.010 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address 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 Subject: [pbs-devel] applied-series: [PATCH proxmox-backup 0/9] tape: improve restore ux X-BeenThere: pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox Backup Server development discussion <pbs-devel.lists.proxmox.com> List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/options/pbs-devel>, <mailto:pbs-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://lists.proxmox.com/pipermail/pbs-devel/> List-Post: <mailto:pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com> List-Help: <mailto:pbs-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pbs-devel>, <mailto:pbs-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=subscribe> X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 26 May 2021 17:16:08 -0000 On 26.05.21 15:48, Dominik Csapak wrote: > by > * adding a 'generic' restore button that is very obvious > (in contrast to only the icon) > this makes it necessary to change the restore window so that > we can select the media-set there > * also allowing datastores to be 'inline restored' > * expanding the inital media-set list > * renaming the 'action' column to 'restore' to make it more obvious > * using the 'proper' backend code path for when the user selected > only 'whole' datastores > * fixing some small bugs > With expanding the pools and renaming the action column to the single action it provides, namely "Restore" would have been already enough to defuse any confusion about where to trigger a restore. Any how, it is definitively more prominent this way, so I applied it with some small changes: * set icones in the tbar button, matching with other uses * always show the snapshot grid in the wizard to avoid that much empty space And rather independent of your series: add a bit more context to the tooltip of the restore action button. The "Restore from Tape" docs section could do with some expansion and maybe even a screenshot of the wizard now, then we could set the onlineHelp reference in the wizard to - maybe we could then also explain there that restoring a whole set is possibly cheaper to do than restoring a partial selection of snapshots. thanks!