From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <f.ebner@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) server-digest SHA256)
 (No client certificate requested)
 by lists.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 58C0091EC
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Thu, 31 Mar 2022 08:37:01 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 49415F0DE
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Thu, 31 Mar 2022 08:37:01 +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 id 0636FF5ED
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Thu, 31 Mar 2022 08:37:00 +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 C80D5457B5
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Thu, 31 Mar 2022 08:36:59 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <943bba51-1bd3-263b-d8c7-1cd667d15d00@proxmox.com>
Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2022 08:36:52 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/91.7.0
Content-Language: en-US
To: Matthias Heiserer <m.heiserer@proxmox.com>, pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com,
 Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com>
References: <20220318135226.2360890-1-m.heiserer@proxmox.com>
 <20220318135226.2360890-2-m.heiserer@proxmox.com>
 <fad919f9-29ae-35ee-4a62-c331de7c305a@proxmox.com>
 <af7dc5a9-e1b2-3cb4-ed0d-173017ad4066@proxmox.com>
From: Fabian Ebner <f.ebner@proxmox.com>
In-Reply-To: <af7dc5a9-e1b2-3cb4-ed0d-173017ad4066@proxmox.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results:  0
 AWL 0.114 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           -0.001 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
 T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE    -0.01 -
Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH manager 1/5 v2] Storage GUI: Rewrite backup
 content view as TreePanel.
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, 31 Mar 2022 06:37:01 -0000

Am 30.03.22 um 14:59 schrieb Matthias Heiserer:
> 8<
> 
>>> +    onLoad: function(store, records, success, operation) {
>>> +        let me = this;
>>> +        let view = me.getView();
>>> +        let selection = view.getSelection()?.[0];
>>> +        selection = selection?.parentNode?.data?.text
>>> +selection?.data?.volid;
>>
>> Style nit: missing space after + and could use `${...}${...}` syntax
>> instead.
> That syntax won't work because then, if both parameters are undefined,
> the result would be a string instead of a falsy (NaN) value.
> There's probably a better way of doing this.
> 

Ok.

>>
>> (...)
>>
>>> +        if (selection) {
>>> +        let rootnode = view.getRootNode();
>>> +        let selected;
>>> +        rootnode.cascade(node => {
>>> +            if (selected) {return false;} // skip if already found
>>
>> Style nit: if body on the same line
> Is 'if on one line' something we generally don't do? It appears
> occasionally in the code.

I don't think it's explicitly forbidden by our style guide, which
essentially is what the linter complains about, but in the (vast)
majority of cases, the body is on its own line.

>>
>>> +        method: 'DELETE',
>>> +        callback: () => me.reload(),
>>> +        failure: response => Ext.Msg.alert(gettext('Error'),
>>> response.htmlStatus),
>>> +        });
>>> +    },
>>> +
>>> +    searchKeyupFn: function(field) {
>>> +        let me = this;
>>> +        me.getView().getStore().getFilters().removeByKey('volid');
>>> +        me.getView().getStore().filter([
>>> +        {
>>> +            property: 'volid',
>>> +            value: field.getValue(),
>>> +            anyMatch: true,
>>> +            caseSensitive: false,
>>> +            id: 'volid',
>>>           },
>>> -        verification: {
>>> -            header: gettext('Verify State'),
>>> -            dataIndex: 'verification',
>>> -            renderer: PVE.Utils.render_backup_verification,
>>> +        ]);
>>> +    },
>>> +
>>> +    searchClearHandler: function(field) {
>>> +        field.triggers.clear.setVisible(false);
>>> +        field.setValue(this.originalValue);
>>> +        this.getView().getStore().clearFilter();
>>> +    },
>>> +
>>> +    searchChangeFn: function(field, newValue, oldValue) {
>>> +        if (newValue !== field.originalValue) {
>>> +        field.triggers.clear.setVisible(true);
>>> +        }
>>> +    },
>>> +
>>> +    storageSelectorBoxReady: function(selector, width, height, eOpts) {
>>> +        selector.setNodename(this.nodename);
>>> +    },
>>
>> Would cbind also be an option?
>>
> Don't think so, as nodename comes from pveSelNode.
> However, normal bind works :)

I mean, you would need to return it as part of the cbindData() ;)