From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <l.wagner@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 444E0ED47
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Thu, 20 Jul 2023 14:31:28 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 22D0712B55
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Thu, 20 Jul 2023 14:31:28 +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
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Thu, 20 Jul 2023 14:31:27 +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 63DE541F8D
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Thu, 20 Jul 2023 14:31:27 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <4e4c327e-8802-1472-3e40-edb6e226061d@proxmox.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2023 14:31:26 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: de-AT, en-US
To: Dominik Csapak <d.csapak@proxmox.com>,
Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
References: <20230717150051.710464-1-l.wagner@proxmox.com>
<20230717150051.710464-64-l.wagner@proxmox.com>
<69a5020f-eb69-c87b-78d6-7e0858a8ea78@proxmox.com>
From: Lukas Wagner <l.wagner@proxmox.com>
In-Reply-To: <69a5020f-eb69-c87b-78d6-7e0858a8ea78@proxmox.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0
AWL -0.099 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
T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE -0.01 -
Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH v3 proxmox-widget-toolkit 63/66]
notification: add gui for notification groups
X-BeenThere: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel.lists.proxmox.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/options/pve-devel>,
<mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.proxmox.com/pipermail/pve-devel/>
List-Post: <mailto:pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
List-Help: <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel>,
<mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2023 12:31:28 -0000
On 7/19/23 15:32, Dominik Csapak wrote:
>> + mixins: {
>> + field: 'Ext.form.field.Field',
>> + },
>
> when implementing the field mixin you have to (quote from the extjs docs)
>
> ---8<---
> You will also need to make sure that initField is called during the component's initialization.
> --->8---
>
> so you normally need a (small) initComponent that calls that
> (otherwise you can have some strange effects when using the field)
>
Thanks, added. For the record, `initField` requires `callParent` to be called before.
I noticed that we are missing a call to `initField` in the following components as well:
MultiDiskSelector (widget-toolkit)
VMCPUFlagSelector (pve-manager)
VMSelector (pve-manager)
Haven't looked into pmg/pbs stuff, maybe some components there might be missing it as well.
--
- Lukas