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 5C7621FF0C0 for ; Wed, 04 Nov 2026 12:19:58 +0100 (CET) Received: from gate001.proxmox.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by gate001.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 2731121321; Wed, 04 Nov 2026 12:19:55 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: Date: Wed, 4 Nov 2026 12:19:50 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Beta Subject: Re: [PATCH pve-manager] fix #5001: ui: add context menu with bulk actions for pools in resource tree To: Jonas Theisen , pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com References: <20261030100700.82807-1-j.theisen@proxmox.com> <0ccb45d6-f875-4aa6-95c4-ed85d67836ee@proxmox.com> Content-Language: en-US From: Dominik Csapak In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Bm-Milter-Handled: 55990f41-d878-4baa-be0a-ee34c49e34d2 X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp: 1793791190485 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.325 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: GEQA6AP5KIQK5VEDFO4GOWSN3T3EMQBN X-Message-ID-Hash: GEQA6AP5KIQK5VEDFO4GOWSN3T3EMQBN X-MailFrom: d.csapak@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 VE development discussion List-Help: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: On 11/4/26 11:57 AM, Jonas Theisen wrote: > On 11/3/26 14:37, Dominik Csapak wrote: >> patch looks good to me, one high level thing and one >> comment inline: >> >> if you send multiple patches, please number them, so it's easier to >> apply the whole thread, e.g. with `b4 shazam` >> >> e.g. if you have both patches on the same branch, >> >> `git send-email` or `git format-patch` should do this for you > > I intentionally did not do that since i thought the two patches > are only related by their targeted component but are not dependent > on each other in any way. > Will keep that in mind for v2. that would also be ok, but then send them please as completely independent patches, not within a single thread. this makes it much clearer in most mail clients/tools that they are separate >> >> >>> >>> + >>> +        me.title = `${gettext('Pool')} '${me.pool}'`; >>> +        if (PVE.ClusterName?.length) { >>> +            me.title += ` (${PVE.ClusterName})`; >>> +        } >>> + >> >> i know this is copied from the other cmd menus here, >> but does it really make sense? >> >> for the datacenter it makes (kinda) sense but for a pool >> not really >> >> i'd just leave it out and use `Pool ` there > > Agreed and also applied that to the Tag menu in v2 as mentioned. >> >>> +        me.extraHandlerArgs = { >>> +            prefilterPool: me.pool, >>> +        }; >>> + >>> +        me.callParent(); >>> +    }, >>> +}); >>> diff --git a/www/manager6/window/BulkAction.js b/www/manager6/window/ >>> BulkAction.js >>> index 2e3066a3..7e58fb3f 100644 >>> --- a/www/manager6/window/BulkAction.js >>> +++ b/www/manager6/window/BulkAction.js >>> @@ -557,6 +557,9 @@ Ext.define('PVE.window.BulkAction', { >>>           if (me.prefilterIncludeTag) { >>> me.down('#includetagfilter').setValue(me.prefilterIncludeTag); >>>           } >>> +        if (me.prefilterPool) { >>> +            me.down('#poolfilter').setValue(me.prefilterPool); >>> +        } >>>             form.on('validitychange', function () { >>>               let valid = form.isValid(); >> >