From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [212.224.123.68]) by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 144491FF13E for ; Fri, 09 Jan 2026 16:29:15 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id C5FFA19D3F; Fri, 9 Jan 2026 16:29:14 +0100 (CET) Mime-Version: 1.0 Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2026 16:28:40 +0100 Message-Id: From: "Daniel Kral" To: "Proxmox VE development discussion" X-Mailer: aerc 0.21.0-38-g7088c3642f2c-dirty References: <20260109083058.92951-1-m.sandoval@proxmox.com> In-Reply-To: <20260109083058.92951-1-m.sandoval@proxmox.com> X-Bm-Milter-Handled: 55990f41-d878-4baa-be0a-ee34c49e34d2 X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp: 1767972480988 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.016 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address BAYES_00 -1.9 Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% DMARC_MISSING 0.1 Missing DMARC policy KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_CERTIFIED_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to Validity was blocked. See https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for more information. RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to Validity was blocked. See https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for more information. RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_SAFE_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to Validity was blocked. See https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for more information. SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record URIBL_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked. See http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block for more information. [proxmox.com] Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH manager] ui: migration: Improve grammar on error string X-BeenThere: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Reply-To: Proxmox VE development discussion Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: pve-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com Sender: "pve-devel" On Fri Jan 9, 2026 at 9:30 AM CET, Maximiliano Sandoval wrote: > Signed-off-by: Maximiliano Sandoval > --- > > This was spotted while translating the UI: > > - Toward was selected instead of towards due to it being slithly more common in > written american english, and also because the string was already too long. > - This string was mentioned at https://forum.proxmox.com/threads/ha-non-strict-negative-resource-affinity.176757/#post-822473 > > > www/manager6/window/Migrate.js | 4 ++-- > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/www/manager6/window/Migrate.js b/www/manager6/window/Migrate.js > index ff80c70c..702009c3 100644 > --- a/www/manager6/window/Migrate.js > +++ b/www/manager6/window/Migrate.js > @@ -428,7 +428,7 @@ Ext.define('PVE.window.Migrate', { > if (cause === 'resource-affinity') { > reasonText = Ext.String.format( > gettext( > - 'HA resource {0} with negative affinity to VM on selected target node', > + 'HA resource {0} has negative affinity toward a VM on the selected target node', Unfortunately, "a VM" is misleading here, because `sid`, is the _blocking_ HA resource, which is the reason why "VM" cannot be migrated to the selected target node. Sorry that it was misleading, but maybe we could either use "the VM" or "VM {vmid}", where vmid = vm.get('vmid') I think in there. > ), > sid, > ); > @@ -518,7 +518,7 @@ Ext.define('PVE.window.Migrate', { > if (cause === 'resource-affinity') { > reasonText = Ext.String.format( > gettext( > - 'HA resource {0} with negative affinity to container on selected target node', > + 'HA resource {0} has negative affinity toward a container on the selected target node', > ), > sid, > ); Same here Otherwise the new text is better, thanks for sending! Would be a nice-to-have to also improve the text for positive resource affinity rules in a second patch in the same manner so it's less confusing :) _______________________________________________ pve-devel mailing list pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel