From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <pdm-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com>
Received: from gate001.proxmox.com (gate001.proxmox.com [45.144.208.40])
	by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 009341FF0DF
	for <inbox@lore.proxmox.com>; Fri, 28 Aug 2026 14:55:53 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from gate001.proxmox.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
	by gate001.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 53F65214DD;
	Fri, 28 Aug 2026 14:55:53 +0200 (CEST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2026 14:55:48 +0200
Message-Id: <DL0LD4F6NSGN.3C5TNOQ9ZGOLP@proxmox.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH datacenter-manager v3 8/9] ui: pve: node selector: show
 maintenance badge with node name
From: "Lukas Wagner" <l.wagner@proxmox.com>
To: "Dominik Csapak" <d.csapak@proxmox.com>, <pdm-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mailer: aerc 0.21.0-0-g5549850facc2-dirty
References: <20260821123201.3035643-1-d.csapak@proxmox.com>
 <20260821123201.3035643-9-d.csapak@proxmox.com>
In-Reply-To: <20260821123201.3035643-9-d.csapak@proxmox.com>
X-Bm-Milter-Handled: 55990f41-d878-4baa-be0a-ee34c49e34d2
X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp: 1787921739417
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results:  0
	AWL                     0.559 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From:
 address
	DMARC_MISSING             0.1 Missing DMARC policy
	KAM_DMARC_STATUS         0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict
 Alignment (newer systems)
	RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED        -2.3 Sender listed at https://www.dnswl.org/,
 medium trust
	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: AQRMDKPYTZJSENKBITGN3NUYRYYYFMSC
X-Message-ID-Hash: AQRMDKPYTZJSENKBITGN3NUYRYYYFMSC
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
 <pdm-devel.lists.proxmox.com>
List-Help: <mailto:pdm-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:pdm-devel-owner@lists.proxmox.com>
List-Post: <mailto:pdm-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:pdm-devel-join@lists.proxmox.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:pdm-devel-leave@lists.proxmox.com>

On Fri Aug 21, 2026 at 2:30 PM CEST, Dominik Csapak wrote:
>          columns.push(
>              DataTableColumn::new(tr!("Memory Usage"))
> -                .render(
> -                    |entry: &ClusterNodeIndexResponse| match (entry.mem,=
 entry.maxmem) {
> -                        (Some(mem), Some(maxmem)) =3D> {
> -                            html! {format!("{:.2}%", 100.0 * mem as f64 =
/ maxmem as f64)}
> -                        }
> -                        _ =3D> html! {},
> -                    },
> -                )
> -                .sorter(
> -                    |a: &ClusterNodeIndexResponse, b: &ClusterNodeIndexR=
esponse| a.mem.cmp(&b.mem),
> -                )
> +                .render(|entry: &PveNodeResource| {
> +                    // don't show values when the node isn't online or w=
hen it's non sensible
> +                    if entry.maxmem =3D=3D 0 || entry.status !=3D "onlin=
e" {
> +                        return html! {};
> +                    }
> +                    html! {format!("{:.2}%", 100.0 * entry.mem as f64 / =
entry.maxmem as f64)}
> +                })
> +                .sorter(|a: &PveNodeResource, b: &PveNodeResource| a.mem=
.cmp(&b.mem))

Pre-existing, so material for a follow-up patch, but I think this sorter
should probably sort based on the shown percentage, not the absolute
value?

Otherwise sorting could pretty much appear random to the user, if the
amount of total memory differs per node?

>                  .into(),
>          );
>      }