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 7DFB21FF0E7 for ; Fri, 10 Jul 2026 09:08:40 +0200 (CEST) Received: from gate001.proxmox.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by gate001.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id D5FB3214AA; Fri, 10 Jul 2026 09:08:39 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <76ff06a5-9653-47d9-a006-1f7192fdc08b@proxmox.com> Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2026 09:08:34 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Beta Subject: Re: [PATCH manager 4/4] fix #6211: ui: vm: options: To: Elias Huhsovitz , pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com References: <20260708130453.166084-1-e.huhsovitz@proxmox.com> <20260708130453.166084-5-e.huhsovitz@proxmox.com> Content-Language: en-US From: Dominik Csapak In-Reply-To: <20260708130453.166084-5-e.huhsovitz@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: 1783667303887 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.066 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) 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: S7CCINXRSV33W4BW26H76LMJZ3YZ255P X-Message-ID-Hash: S7CCINXRSV33W4BW26H76LMJZ3YZ255P 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: Proxmox VE development discussion List-Help: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: same here regarding the commit subject as 3/4 IMO this patch does not really fit together with the rest, even though the bug mentions both. (should have be two issues i guess, but it doesn't matter) one comment inline with or without that changed (+ the commit subject fixed): Reviewed-by: Dominik Csapak On 7/8/26 3:05 PM, Elias Huhsovitz wrote: > The "protection" options was ambiguous. > Add hint to briefly describe the feature. > Add help button that points to Options section containing a description > of the "protection" option. > > Signed-off-by: Elias Huhsovitz > --- > www/manager6/qemu/Options.js | 25 +++++++++++++++++++------ > 1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/www/manager6/qemu/Options.js b/www/manager6/qemu/Options.js > index 8a4721a0..664606da 100644 > --- a/www/manager6/qemu/Options.js > +++ b/www/manager6/qemu/Options.js > @@ -319,13 +319,26 @@ Ext.define('PVE.qemu.Options', { > ? { > xtype: 'proxmoxWindowEdit', > subject: gettext('Protection'), > + onlineHelp: 'qm_options', > items: { > - xtype: 'proxmoxcheckbox', > - name: 'protection', > - uncheckedValue: 0, > - defaultValue: 0, > - deleteDefaultValue: true, > - fieldLabel: gettext('Enabled'), > + xtype: 'inputpanel', > + items: [ > + { > + xtype: 'proxmoxcheckbox', > + name: 'protection', > + uncheckedValue: 0, > + defaultValue: 0, > + deleteDefaultValue: true, > + fieldLabel: gettext('Enabled'), > + }, > + { > + xtype: 'displayfield', > + userCls: 'pmx-hint', > + value: gettext( > + 'Prevents the VM and its disks from being removed', > + ), > + }, > + ], instead of a new hint field, we could simply make use of the 'boxLabel' here, which just shows extra text after the checkbox but it's not a big deal either way > }, > } > : undefined,