Re: [PATCH manager 05/18] ui: form/CRSOptions: allow auto rebalancing only for static and dynamic mode

Michael Köppl
2026-04-14T07:31:52Z

On Tue Apr 14, 2026 at 9:18 AM CEST, Daniel Kral wrote:
> On Mon Apr 13, 2026 at 6:01 PM CEST, Michael Köppl wrote:
>> On Thu Apr 9, 2026 at 1:41 PM CEST, Daniel Kral wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>> @@ -42,14 +46,15 @@ Ext.define('PVE.form.CRSOptions', {
>>> name: 'ha',
>>> fieldLabel: gettext('Scheduling Mode'),
>>> deleteEmpty: false,
>>> - value: '__default__',
>>> comboItems: [
>>> ['__default__', Proxmox.Utils.defaultText + ' (basic)'],
>>> ['basic', gettext('Basic (Resource Count)')],
>>> ['static', gettext('Static Load')],
>>> ['dynamic', gettext('Dynamic Load')],
>>> ],
>>> - defaultValue: '__default__',
>>> + bind: {
>>> + value: '{crsMode}',
>>> + },
>>> },
>>> {
>>> xtype: 'proxmoxcheckbox',
>>> @@ -67,6 +72,7 @@ Ext.define('PVE.form.CRSOptions', {
>>> boxLabel: gettext('Automatically rebalance HA resources'),
>>> bind: {
>>> value: '{autoRebalancing}',
>>> + disabled: '{!canUseAutoRebalancing}',
>>
>> not a big deal, but wanted to mention it nonetheless: if a user selects
>> e.g. static mode and enables auto rebalancing and then later switches to
>> basic mode, the checkbox remains checked visually, but the value is
>> still set to false once submitted. It's just a cosmetic issue, but
>> something I noticed during my testing.
>
> Thanks for the feedback!
>
> I thought about this too, but it also felt a little bit odd if a user
> flicks through the scheduling modes and the auto rebalancing fields get
> wiped every time the user goes to the default/basic scheduling mode...
>
> Maybe a compromise is to completely hide those options alltogether, so
> that the value isn't seen at all? Though that would hide the
> functionality and it isn't the most obvious that one needs to select
> 'static' or 'dynamic' to get the auto rebalancing options.

I personally don't like the idea of hiding options. I think I'd still
prefer clearing the checkbox if the user selects default/basic, but I
see your point that it's a bit weird UX-wise. I'd note, though, that
we do this in other cases in the UI as well (see PCIEdit.js,
OSTypeEdit.js, ...), so it's not too unexpected, I think.

It it very subjective, though. Maybe someone else has a stronger opinion
in this regard.

>
>>
>>> },
>>> },
>>> {