From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [IPv6:2a01:7e0:0:424::9]) by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 95C551FF13C for ; Thu, 28 May 2026 13:16:18 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id DEAA614092; Thu, 28 May 2026 13:16:17 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: Date: Thu, 28 May 2026 13:15:43 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Beta Subject: Re: [PATCH yew-comp] wizard: fix page unlocking with advanced fields To: Dominik Csapak , yew-devel@lists.proxmox.com References: <20260528091851.1424576-1-d.csapak@proxmox.com> <2931a660-6cbf-4b24-81f2-358f0010ed2e@proxmox.com> <3e045704-3111-4036-b7c7-72be60a50c40@proxmox.com> Content-Language: en-US From: Thomas Lamprecht In-Reply-To: <3e045704-3111-4036-b7c7-72be60a50c40@proxmox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Bm-Milter-Handled: 55990f41-d878-4baa-be0a-ee34c49e34d2 X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp: 1779966916118 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.005 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: CUFGQESIV274AQQDZNSBPZJIVOKZM6ZO X-Message-ID-Hash: CUFGQESIV274AQQDZNSBPZJIVOKZM6ZO X-MailFrom: t.lamprecht@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: Am 28.05.26 um 12:54 schrieb Dominik Csapak: > On 5/28/26 12:20 PM, Thomas Lamprecht wrote: >> Maybe "fix page validation with advanced fields" as that's what's fixed, >> the unlocking is then just an effect of that (can edit that on applying). > > yes that's fine with me, should i send a v2 or is it fine to simply > fix it up on applying? I'll fix that up, thx. >> FWIW, for the auto installer answer file wizard I'd like to add a >> "free_navigation" option to the wizard, with that then one can navigate >> through all steps freely from the start. Needs validity handling on submit >> and a small UI hint for invalid tabs in the bar for UX though, which is a bit >> more work and that's why I skipped adding it yesterday. > > maybe then a wizard is not actually what we want here, but maybe a > manual tabpanel which marks the tabs with a fa-triangle-exclamation > or something if it's not valid? I thought about that, but I like the wizard form of having a guided "next" and (here still missing) final summary and confirmation page for some flows. And I really see no essential clash with having all steps available with the guided wizard approach itself in general, i.e. not a must, but can be totally fine; this allows power users some more flexibility while guiding less experienced users better. But I agree that this needs some special care, the UI/UX polishing for this can make the difference between a great feature or confusion, so I'd like to flesh out and validate what I have in mind a bit more in-depth before doing anything here.