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 D2CD11FF0E5 for ; Wed, 15 Jul 2026 14:18:19 +0200 (CEST) Received: from gate001.proxmox.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by gate001.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id F02C6213FA; Wed, 15 Jul 2026 14:18:18 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <97c1aba3-6dda-4ac0-8935-f0009e453c3a@proxmox.com> Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2026 14:17:44 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Beta Subject: Re: [PATCH manager] fix #6211: ui: vm: options: add tooltip to protection option To: Elias Huhsovitz , pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com References: <20260713114657.147881-1-e.huhsovitz@proxmox.com> Content-Language: en-US From: Dominik Csapak In-Reply-To: <20260713114657.147881-1-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: 1784117846510 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.321 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_LOW -0.7 Sender listed at https://www.dnswl.org/, low 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: 7FBCC2C2QXRBSO5VO7EDDCSCGFWFAVPZ X-Message-ID-Hash: 7FBCC2C2QXRBSO5VO7EDDCSCGFWFAVPZ 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: would speak anything against putting the icon into the 'boxLabel' instead of to the fieldlabel? that would put it right next to the actual checkbox and not to the relatively generic 'enabled' label i think our users should now what 'enabled' means, but what we want to convey is the meaning of the actual option On 7/13/26 1:47 PM, Elias Huhsovitz wrote: > The "protection" options was ambiguous. > Add tooltip to briefly describe the option. > > Signed-off-by: Elias Huhsovitz > --- > www/manager6/qemu/Options.js | 4 ++++ > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/www/manager6/qemu/Options.js b/www/manager6/qemu/Options.js > index 8a4721a0..9ade5ccb 100644 > --- a/www/manager6/qemu/Options.js > +++ b/www/manager6/qemu/Options.js > @@ -326,6 +326,10 @@ Ext.define('PVE.qemu.Options', { > defaultValue: 0, > deleteDefaultValue: true, > fieldLabel: gettext('Enabled'), > + afterLabelTextTpl: ' ', > + autoEl: { > + 'data-qtip': gettext('Prevents the VM and its disks from being removed') > + } > }, > } > : undefined,