From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from gate001.proxmox.com (gate001.proxmox.com [45.144.208.40]) by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E56681FF0DF for ; Thu, 05 Nov 2026 11:17:27 +0100 (CET) Received: from gate001.proxmox.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by gate001.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id B407621412; Thu, 05 Nov 2026 11:17:27 +0100 (CET) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Date: Thu, 05 Nov 2026 11:17:22 +0100 Message-Id: Subject: Re: [PATCH proxmox-yew-widget-toolkit 4/5] widget: form: implement multi select field From: "Nicolas Frey" To: "Dominik Csapak" , X-Mailer: aerc 0.20.0 References: <20261028151517.518742-1-n.frey@proxmox.com> <20261028151517.518742-5-n.frey@proxmox.com> <1d940f6b-355d-46ed-80ba-e8e14f58503b@proxmox.com> In-Reply-To: <1d940f6b-355d-46ed-80ba-e8e14f58503b@proxmox.com> X-Bm-Milter-Handled: 55990f41-d878-4baa-be0a-ee34c49e34d2 X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp: 1793873842208 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 1.148 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: VJBV4ZKIEQJEU4F3Z3DXZXOOSNALWY3G X-Message-ID-Hash: VJBV4ZKIEQJEU4F3Z3DXZXOOSNALWY3G X-MailFrom: n.frey@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: Yew framework devel list at Proxmox List-Help: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: On Mon Nov 2, 2026 at 3:12 PM CET, Dominik Csapak wrote: > some high level comments: > > I'd really like for this to follow the existing conventions for our > other fields. It's Basically a Combobox but with multiselect, so I'd > like to see either: > > * make it an option in combobox `.multiselect(true)` > * or keep it separate but implement the same interface (with_item, > triggers, etc.) > > (wheatever is easier) > > If it's a separate field, something like 'multicombobox' would > maybe be more fitting? (to convey the combobox base) thanks for the feedback! I'll see what feels better from the impl and API consumer POV and follow up in a v2 [snip]