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 DD0141FF137 for ; Tue, 14 Apr 2026 09:39:00 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id CC679FAAE; Tue, 14 Apr 2026 09:39:49 +0200 (CEST) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2026 09:39:12 +0200 Message-Id: Subject: Re: [PATCH manager 05/18] ui: form/CRSOptions: allow auto rebalancing only for static and dynamic mode From: "Daniel Kral" To: =?utf-8?q?Michael_K=C3=B6ppl?= , X-Mailer: aerc 0.21.0-136-gdb9fe9896a79-dirty References: <20260409114224.323102-1-d.kral@proxmox.com> <20260409114224.323102-6-d.kral@proxmox.com> In-Reply-To: X-Bm-Milter-Handled: 55990f41-d878-4baa-be0a-ee34c49e34d2 X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp: 1776152276790 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.079 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 Message-ID-Hash: SAAZ3L7FSU5PL5B6WWQ55HV75I3YVYNF X-Message-ID-Hash: SAAZ3L7FSU5PL5B6WWQ55HV75I3YVYNF X-MailFrom: d.kral@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: On Tue Apr 14, 2026 at 9:32 AM CEST, Michael K=C3=B6ppl wrote: > On Tue Apr 14, 2026 at 9:18 AM CEST, Daniel Kral wrote: >> On Mon Apr 13, 2026 at 6:01 PM CEST, Michael K=C3=B6ppl 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 res= ources'), >>>> 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 t= o >>> 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. I'm not a fan of hiding the options either except it really makes sense UX-wise, then I will go for clearing the options here! Thanks! > >> >>> >>>> }, >>>> }, >>>> {