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 9064E1FF142 for ; Fri, 22 May 2026 15:33:46 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 68E11C3FD; Fri, 22 May 2026 15:33:46 +0200 (CEST) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Date: Fri, 22 May 2026 15:33:43 +0200 Message-Id: To: "Dominik Csapak" , Subject: Re: [PATCH datacenter-manager/proxmox-geojson-data/yew-widget-toolkit/yew-widget-toolkit-assets v3 00/11] add a new map widget for custom views X-Mailer: aerc 0.20.0 References: <20260522083412.1223719-1-d.csapak@proxmox.com> In-Reply-To: <20260522083412.1223719-1-d.csapak@proxmox.com> From: "Shannon Sterz" X-Bm-Milter-Handled: 55990f41-d878-4baa-be0a-ee34c49e34d2 X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp: 1779456804991 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: LPKWKTEYM2THLOFUPDKGGBRF23OI5PSR X-Message-ID-Hash: LPKWKTEYM2THLOFUPDKGGBRF23OI5PSR 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: On Fri May 22, 2026 at 10:33 AM CEST, Dominik Csapak wrote: > This series let's users add location info to remotes (longitude,latitude)= and > makes it possible to show them on a map in a custom view. > > This map is interactive, so it let's you zoom/pan/etc. (with touch contro= ls too) > > It also adds new status info per remote to the resources status api call > so we can show some sensible info on the map (success/warn/error). > > For now this is very basic only, but we can extend that in the future by = e.g., > adding a health call for each remote and including this info here. > > The source map data is from naturalearthdata.com (data is in the public d= omain) > and is converted to geojson with 'ogr2ogr' (small script is included) -->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