From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: <t.lamprecht@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 617CE62C62 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Tue, 24 Nov 2020 14:29:18 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 4DC46CE8A for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Tue, 24 Nov 2020 14:28:48 +0100 (CET) Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (proxmox-new.maurer-it.com [212.186.127.180]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS id DAB23CE7D for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Tue, 24 Nov 2020 14:28:47 +0100 (CET) Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id A6FD240622 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Tue, 24 Nov 2020 14:28:47 +0100 (CET) To: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>, Fabian Ebner <f.ebner@proxmox.com> References: <20201124130053.10494-1-f.ebner@proxmox.com> From: Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com> Message-ID: <d370c59d-5e6a-4e7f-eaea-976c4d98afc5@proxmox.com> Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2020 14:28:46 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:83.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/83.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20201124130053.10494-1-f.ebner@proxmox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL -0.082 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment 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 Subject: [pve-devel] applied: [PATCH v5 manager] ui: storage backup view: add prune window 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: Tue, 24 Nov 2020 13:29:18 -0000 On 24.11.20 14:00, Fabian Ebner wrote: > adapted from PBS. Main differences are: > * API has GET/DELETE distinction instead of 'dry-run' > * API expects a single property string for the prune options > > Signed-off-by: Fabian Ebner <f.ebner@proxmox.com> > --- > > Needs a dependency bump for proxmox-widget-toolkit. > > Changes from v4: > * Switch to widget toolkit's prune keep fields. > * Don't load values from the storage initially. While it could be done, > doing a manual prune doesn't need to have to do anything at all with the > configuration on the storage. Problem is also that a clear trigger > would reset to that value instead of clearing, which obviously makes > sense when editing the storage configuration, but not really for > doing a one-shot prune operation. > * Use "renamed" as a reason instead of "strange name" for renamed backups > > www/manager6/Makefile | 1 + > www/manager6/storage/BackupView.js | 51 ++++++ > www/manager6/window/Prune.js | 257 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > 3 files changed, 309 insertions(+) > create mode 100644 www/manager6/window/Prune.js > > applied, thanks!