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 8D4B01FF142 for ; Fri, 22 May 2026 15:32:58 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 3C681C388; Fri, 22 May 2026 15:32:57 +0200 (CEST) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Date: Fri, 22 May 2026 15:32:53 +0200 Message-Id: Subject: Re: [PATCH datacenter-manager v4 00/10] subscription key pool registry To: "Shannon Sterz" , "Thomas Lamprecht" , X-Mailer: aerc 0.20.0 References: <20260522085128.2678090-1-t.lamprecht@proxmox.com> In-Reply-To: From: "Shannon Sterz" X-Bm-Milter-Handled: 55990f41-d878-4baa-be0a-ee34c49e34d2 X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp: 1779456754900 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.112 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: BB3U3O734K46VY65CZQXA34G3MW5C6QH X-Message-ID-Hash: BB3U3O734K46VY65CZQXA34G3MW5C6QH X-MailFrom: s.sterz@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: ignore the below thumbled this, should have been in reply to a different series, sorry. On Fri May 22, 2026 at 3:30 PM CEST, Shannon Sterz wrote: > On Thu May 21, 2026 at 9:20 PM CEST, Thomas Lamprecht wrote: >> v4 of the Subscription Registry. Addresses all review feedback on v3 >> from Wolfgang and Lukas, and drops the trailing RFC wizard per the >> consensus on v3-0012. >> >> For the v2 -> v3 changelog and the original design discussion see the >> v3 cover at: >> https://lore.proxmox.com/pdm-devel/20260515074623.766766-1-t.lamprecht= @proxmox.com >> >> Notable v3 -> v4 (see per-patch notes for details): > > -->8 snip 8<-- > > some general feedback for this series: > > generally this worked as intended on my end. the map could benefit from > some more gestures in my opinion though, such as: > > * doubl tap to zoom: useful as an accessibility guide > * double-tap and drag to zoom: very useful for one handed control > > both of these would need extra support in the gesture controller from > what i can tell. also since for now that map is only really used in a > desktop context, imo this is not a big problem, but would be nice > follow-ups. > > note that the drag to zoom gesture did not work for me when trying to > test this by pressing SHIFT+drag in the Chromium mobile dev tools. > > one thing i found somewhat irretating is that clicking a remote on the > map triggers a map info card in the top center of the browser window > (only in firefox, chrome renders this card on top of the clicked > cluster). that card is sticky and even clicking somewhere on or outside > the map won't dismiss it. the only way i found it's possible to dismiss > this, is by zooming in enough on the map to make it go away eventually. > imo that can be irritating as the card will overlay other widgets in a > view. especially when several resources cluster this card can become > fairly long. > > another thing that might make sense, is mentioning where the map data is > from. most other map widgets im aware of do this with a small note in > the bottom right [1,2]. this could also come in handy if someone claims > that we assert the "correct" boundaries for a country. which could be > problematic in some cases, such as the india-pakistan-china border > region. all of these countries have different and overlapping claims to > the region [3]. > > hope the somewhat nitpicky review is alright. except for the map info > issue, nothing here is something id consider a blocker, most of it can > easily be cleaned up or improved in (trivial) follow-ups. so consider > this: > > Tested-by: Shannon Sterz > Reviewed-by: Shannon Sterz > > [1]: compare, grafana's implementation: > https://play.grafana.org/d/panel-geomap/geomap-examples > [2]: compare google map's implementation: https://www.google.com/maps/ > [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kashmir_conflict