From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <t.lamprecht@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 9621C91FE7
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Thu, 9 Feb 2023 17:22:07 +0100 (CET)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 7988B27399
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Thu, 9 Feb 2023 17:22:07 +0100 (CET)
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))
(No client certificate requested)
by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Thu, 9 Feb 2023 17:22:06 +0100 (CET)
Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
by proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 02B8246571
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Thu, 9 Feb 2023 17:22:06 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <8f61a4a7-744a-3e67-d3f6-395de0b2db80@proxmox.com>
Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2023 17:22:04 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:105.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/105.0
Content-Language: en-GB
To: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>,
Dominik Csapak <d.csapak@proxmox.com>
References: <20230202144135.3892582-1-d.csapak@proxmox.com>
<20230202144135.3892582-2-d.csapak@proxmox.com>
From: Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com>
In-Reply-To: <20230202144135.3892582-2-d.csapak@proxmox.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0
AWL 0.523 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address
BAYES_00 -1.9 Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1%
KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment
NICE_REPLY_A -1.148 Looks like a legit reply (A)
SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record
SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record
Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH manager v2 1/6] ui: remove 'Storage View'
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, 09 Feb 2023 16:22:07 -0000
On 02/02/2023 15:41, Dominik Csapak wrote:
> it is basically the 'Server View' but with less content, and has often
> times lead to confusion when uses accidentally selected it.
>
> Signed-off-by: Dominik Csapak <d.csapak@proxmox.com>
> ---
> www/manager6/form/ViewSelector.js | 7 -------
> 1 file changed, 7 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/www/manager6/form/ViewSelector.js b/www/manager6/form/ViewSelector.js
> index 45fabd7ef..e25547c41 100644
> --- a/www/manager6/form/ViewSelector.js
> +++ b/www/manager6/form/ViewSelector.js
> @@ -26,13 +26,6 @@ Ext.define('PVE.form.ViewSelector', {
> text: gettext('Folder View'),
> groups: ['type'],
> },
> - storage: {
> - text: gettext('Storage View'),
> - groups: ['node'],
> - filterfn: function(node) {
> - return node.data.type === 'storage' || node.data.type === 'node';
> - },
> - },
> pool: {
> text: gettext('Pool View'),
> groups: ['pool'],
I'm fully agreeing with removing this useless view, just not sure if a minor
point release is right for that, but otoh. we could simply reinstate this if
we it turns out that we really got users out there depending on that view...
So, if there are no objection from any dev/user now already I'd go ahead with
applying this one.