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 A33DE1FF146 for ; Tue, 12 May 2026 04:44:19 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 5499E277D5; Tue, 12 May 2026 04:44:17 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <6b5873a4-2347-4d9b-b884-fb22773ba800@proxmox.com> Date: Tue, 12 May 2026 04:43:39 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Beta Subject: Re: [PATCH manager v3] ui: ha: add disarm/re-arm button To: Dominik Rusovac , pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com References: <20260416112033.148589-1-d.rusovac@proxmox.com> Content-Language: en-US, de-DE From: Thomas Lamprecht In-Reply-To: <20260416112033.148589-1-d.rusovac@proxmox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Bm-Milter-Handled: 55990f41-d878-4baa-be0a-ee34c49e34d2 X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp: 1778553708410 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.003 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: 2UOROQL54T5UUZBQCB5IIRCWXLMU3HPP X-Message-ID-Hash: 2UOROQL54T5UUZBQCB5IIRCWXLMU3HPP X-MailFrom: t.lamprecht@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: On 16/04/2026 13:19, Dominik Rusovac wrote: > The button to disarm HA in either of the resource modes ('freeze' or > 'ignore') is disabled as long as HA is disarmed. Analogously, the button > to arm HA is disabled as long as HA is not disarmed. > > For feedback, after clicking either of the buttons, icon spins as long as > (dis)arming process has not changed the armed-state of HA. > > The icons ('unlink' and 'link') are chosen to emphasize that "Disarm HA" > and "Arm HA" are complements. There may be more suitable pairs of icons > though. > Thanks for this, works OK implementation wise. > Signed-off-by: Dominik Rusovac > --- > changes since v2: > * inline setting isDisarmed flag > * use 'tbar' > * switch positions of buttons > * hook into 'hastatuschange' to provide feedback via spinning icon while > armed-state of HA changes: Can we drop that? It's rather confusing, especially as its gone if one switches away to another panel and then back to the HA one while disarm is still running. And even if one could fix that by checking the status, I'd still not mask the whole resources here, seems just a bit odd to do. If, then I'd show a spinning icon at the end of the "fencing" status row, but not a a must either, I just wanted to put the idea out there as a trade to get some feedback for the user. In the prompt's I'd find it nice if you could add another sentence for what disarming means for each mode. Like: "Are you sure you want to disarm HA with resource mode 'Freeze'? This will freeze all services allowing no change to their operational state." and: "Are you sure you want to disarm HA with resource mode 'Ignore'? This will allow fully circumventing the HA stack for changing the operational state of a service during disarmament." Maybe throw in that no service will be recovered during HA being disarmed, albeit that is IMO a bit more intuitive than the different modes for (newer) users.