From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from gate001.proxmox.com (gate001.proxmox.com [45.144.208.40]) by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DCCB81FF09B for ; Mon, 31 Aug 2026 12:07:23 +0200 (CEST) Received: from gate001.proxmox.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by gate001.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id AE8A921270; Mon, 31 Aug 2026 12:07:23 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <723cddde-088e-4b52-9d10-b5f4c4be5e1e@proxmox.com> Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2026 12:07:20 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH proxmox-backup] ui: datastore content: allow moving namespace from parent To: Dominik Csapak , pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com References: <20260428111822.2471005-1-d.csapak@proxmox.com> Content-Language: en-US, de-DE From: Christian Ebner In-Reply-To: <20260428111822.2471005-1-d.csapak@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: 1788170827483 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.691 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address DMARC_MISSING 0.1 Missing DMARC policy KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment (newer systems) RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED -2.3 Sender listed at https://www.dnswl.org/, medium trust 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: VNBTNSXW6QA3QYMCMTU2HB67UTQIEVMV X-Message-ID-Hash: VNBTNSXW6QA3QYMCMTU2HB67UTQIEVMV X-MailFrom: c.ebner@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 Backup Server development discussion List-Help: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: On 4/28/26 1:16 PM, Dominik Csapak wrote: > having to go into the namespace to move it seems unintuitive, so allow > it from it's parent too. > > Since it touches the same lines, fix the formatting issue detected with > proxmox-biome. > > Signed-off-by: Dominik Csapak > --- > sending as RFC because it's not urgent and IMHO it's not clear how we > should behave after moving: when inside the namespace it's clear, > we change the current view to the new place. > > But how should we handle it when we move it from the parent? > Should we navigate to the new parent? Or should we move inside the > new path (as it's currently handled) or should we stay on the same > namespace and not navigate away? > > Would appreciate input on what users might expect here... IMO it would make sense to stay on the same parent and not navigate away, so a user can subsequently move additional namespaces from that parent location without much hurdle. I seen not much benefit from moving to different locations.