From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <d.csapak@proxmox.com>
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [212.224.123.68])
(using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)
key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits))
(No client certificate requested)
by lists.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7D96192FAB
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Thu, 15 Sep 2022 13:55:28 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 75EBA18024
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Thu, 15 Sep 2022 13:54:58 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (proxmox-new.maurer-it.com
[94.136.29.106])
(using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)
key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits))
(No client certificate requested)
by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Thu, 15 Sep 2022 13:54:58 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
by proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id D2006442C1;
Thu, 15 Sep 2022 13:54:57 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <ab5fa6cf-a67c-2a25-e115-c93df9f00f95@proxmox.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2022 13:54:57 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:105.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/105.0
Content-Language: en-US
To: Aaron Lauterer <a.lauterer@proxmox.com>,
Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
References: <20220621092012.1776825-1-d.csapak@proxmox.com>
<20220621092012.1776825-21-d.csapak@proxmox.com>
<0803afcb-3361-b117-eab8-282405fe5ee8@proxmox.com>
From: Dominik Csapak <d.csapak@proxmox.com>
In-Reply-To: <0803afcb-3361-b117-eab8-282405fe5ee8@proxmox.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0
AWL 0.879 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address
BAYES_00 -1.9 Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1%
KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment
NICE_REPLY_A -1.583 Looks like a legit reply (A)
SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record
SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record
T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE -0.01 -
Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH manager v7 10/14] ui: tree/ResourceTree:
show Tags in tree
X-BeenThere: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel.lists.proxmox.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/options/pve-devel>,
<mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.proxmox.com/pipermail/pve-devel/>
List-Post: <mailto:pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
List-Help: <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel>,
<mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2022 11:55:28 -0000
On 9/14/22 16:15, Aaron Lauterer wrote:
> Why the change from vm.text to vm_text in {lxc,qemu}/Config.js?
>
> AFAICT we have exactly the same string in the now not used "vm.text".
>
> If these changes are needed and should be part of this commmit, a short explanation would be good as
> it does not seem to have anything to do with the resource tree.
you're right in that the explanation is missing:
to show the tags in the tree, we have to modify the text in those records, which are passed
through to the components and end up in 'vm.text', so the tags would end up there
but since we want the tags to be shown differently there (to be able to add/edit them)
we cannot use that anymore
>
> On 6/21/22 11:20, Dominik Csapak wrote:
[snip]
>> node: {
>> @@ -114,6 +116,8 @@ Ext.define('PVE.tree.ResourceTree', {
>> }
>> }
>> + info.text += PVE.Utils.renderTags(info.tags, PVE.Utils.tagOverrides);
>> +
>> info.text = status + info.text;
>> },
here we modify the 'text' property