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 2C2131FF13C for ; Thu, 28 May 2026 12:55:51 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 0634D13477; Thu, 28 May 2026 12:55:50 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <3e045704-3111-4036-b7c7-72be60a50c40@proxmox.com> Date: Thu, 28 May 2026 12:55:16 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Beta Subject: Re: [PATCH yew-comp] wizard: fix page unlocking with advanced fields To: Thomas Lamprecht , yew-devel@lists.proxmox.com References: <20260528091851.1424576-1-d.csapak@proxmox.com> <2931a660-6cbf-4b24-81f2-358f0010ed2e@proxmox.com> Content-Language: en-US From: Dominik Csapak In-Reply-To: <2931a660-6cbf-4b24-81f2-358f0010ed2e@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: 1779965689116 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.049 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: QWYISFFATGZEQBY6W4OA4G7QCZBKXLPD X-Message-ID-Hash: QWYISFFATGZEQBY6W4OA4G7QCZBKXLPD 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: Yew framework devel list at Proxmox List-Help: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: On 5/28/26 12:20 PM, Thomas Lamprecht wrote: > Am 28.05.26 um 11:18 schrieb Dominik Csapak: >> The wizard depends on the form context validation of the pages to >> determine which to lock and unlock. Initially all pages are locked and >> only if the form_ctx changes and is valid the corresponding page will be >> unlocked. With the introduction of the advanced button in the wizard, >> this can happen for pages even if they're not rendered yet. > > I.e., pages get unlocked overly eagerly vs. kept beeing locked? Just to be > sure as the subject confused me there for a moment. yes exactly, when the page is not rendered yet, the form_ctx does not have any registered fields and the advanced cb change triggers the form_ctx change and at this point the page is 'valid'. > Maybe "fix page validation with advanced fields" as that's what's fixed, > the unlocking is then just an effect of that (can edit that on applying). yes that's fine with me, should i send a v2 or is it fine to simply fix it up on applying? > > FWIW, for the auto installer answer file wizard I'd like to add a > "free_navigation" option to the wizard, with that then one can navigate > through all steps freely from the start. Needs validity handling on submit > and a small UI hint for invalid tabs in the bar for UX though, which is a bit > more work and that's why I skipped adding it yesterday. maybe then a wizard is not actually what we want here, but maybe a manual tabpanel which marks the tabs with a fa-triangle-exclamation or something if it's not valid? > > Just mentioning for context, your patch here is still warranted in any case.