From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [IPv6:2a01:7e0:0:424::9]) by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 88C481FF142 for ; Tue, 21 Apr 2026 13:55:16 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 6AC5F1D5BF; Tue, 21 Apr 2026 13:55:16 +0200 (CEST) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2026 13:54:39 +0200 Message-Id: Subject: Re: [PATCH datacenter-manager] ui: pbs: add tasks to node tab panel From: "Lukas Wagner" To: "Dominik Csapak" , "Lukas Wagner" , X-Mailer: aerc 0.21.0-0-g5549850facc2-dirty References: <20260309143827.3017628-1-d.csapak@proxmox.com> <60f1a75d-7e19-4aa6-9940-16c7729f1efd@proxmox.com> In-Reply-To: <60f1a75d-7e19-4aa6-9940-16c7729f1efd@proxmox.com> X-Bm-Milter-Handled: 55990f41-d878-4baa-be0a-ee34c49e34d2 X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp: 1776772394409 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.054 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 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: YG6NT3JY2BEW3O6EYWI7HAT6ZACK2LLP X-Message-ID-Hash: YG6NT3JY2BEW3O6EYWI7HAT6ZACK2LLP X-MailFrom: l.wagner@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 Datacenter Manager development discussion List-Help: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: On Thu Apr 2, 2026 at 1:09 PM CEST, Dominik Csapak wrote: > > > On 4/2/26 12:54 PM, Lukas Wagner wrote: >> On Mon Mar 9, 2026 at 3:37 PM CET, Dominik Csapak wrote: >>> Similar to PVE, but since we don't have a 'Datacenter' tab panel, simpl= y >>> use the 'node' one, since there can only be one for PBS anyway. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Dominik Csapak >>> --- >>> ui/src/pbs/node/mod.rs | 12 +++++++++++- >>> 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/ui/src/pbs/node/mod.rs b/ui/src/pbs/node/mod.rs >>> index abb1f6a6..6d2f46b8 100644 >>> --- a/ui/src/pbs/node/mod.rs >>> +++ b/ui/src/pbs/node/mod.rs >>> @@ -17,7 +17,7 @@ pub(crate) mod overview; >>> =20 >>> use overview::PbsNodeOverviewPanel; >>> =20 >>> -use crate::get_deep_url_low_level; >>> +use crate::{get_deep_url_low_level, remotes::RemoteTaskList}; >>> =20 >>> #[derive(Clone, Debug, Eq, PartialEq, Properties)] >>> pub struct PbsNodePanel { >>> @@ -78,6 +78,16 @@ impl yew::Component for PbsNodePanelComp { >>> move |_| PbsNodeOverviewPanel::new(remote.clone()= ).into() >>> }, >>> ) >>> + .with_item_builder( >>> + TabBarItem::new() >>> + .key("tasks_view") >>> + .label(tr!("Tasks")) >>> + .icon_class("fa fa-list"), >>> + { >>> + let remote =3D props.remote.clone(); >>> + move |_| RemoteTaskList::new().remote(remote.clone= ()).into() >>> + }, >>> + ) >>> .with_item_builder( >>> TabBarItem::new() >>> .key("update_view") >>=20 >> I wonder, should we also add a 'per-node' Tasks tab for PVE remotes? >> What do you think? >>=20 > > mhmm can make sense, but maybe a better option would be to add a node > selector to the tasks on datacenter level? (maybe both?) Yeah, that could also make sense, I think. The main reason I mentioned it is consistency, I think the 'node' objects in the resource tree should offer the same tabs for both, PVE and PBS, if sensible and possible. But anyways, I think this tab makes sense for PBS, so I'd go ahead and apply this soonish. > > I just fear that we might overload the interface with too many options > if we do this for everything (but that fear might be unfounded :P )