From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <f.ebner@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 95E39D738
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon, 21 Aug 2023 10:49:02 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 7131314B56
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon, 21 Aug 2023 10:48:32 +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>; Mon, 21 Aug 2023 10:48:31 +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 99A5842A26
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon, 21 Aug 2023 10:48:31 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <e172c00d-f7a1-9dd6-57a4-c4569b0f5486@proxmox.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2023 10:48:30 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/102.14.0
Content-Language: en-US
To: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>,
 Aaron Lauterer <a.lauterer@proxmox.com>
References: <20230509075611.884153-1-a.lauterer@proxmox.com>
From: Fiona Ebner <f.ebner@proxmox.com>
In-Reply-To: <20230509075611.884153-1-a.lauterer@proxmox.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results:  0
 AWL 2.076 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
 NICE_REPLY_A           -4.279 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
Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [RFC manager] ui: DirEdit: add hint when to enable
 shared
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: Mon, 21 Aug 2023 08:49:02 -0000

Am 09.05.23 um 09:56 schrieb Aaron Lauterer:
> To hopefully reduce confusion what the 'shared' checkbox does.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Aaron Lauterer <a.lauterer@proxmox.com>
> ---
> 
> I saw it one time too many where users were a bit confused as to what
> this checkbox is for. Since we have a hard time to find a better label,
> maybe we want to put a small hint below it?
> 
> The phrasing can probably be improved upon. But I think having something
> there that can hopefully explain it enough, transporting that the
> sharing itself needs to be configured beforehand by the user, would help.
> 
>  www/manager6/storage/DirEdit.js | 4 ++++

While directory certainly is the most common one, adding a similar hint
for LVM might also be worth it.

>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/www/manager6/storage/DirEdit.js b/www/manager6/storage/DirEdit.js
> index 7e9ec44d..8c6f868a 100644
> --- a/www/manager6/storage/DirEdit.js
> +++ b/www/manager6/storage/DirEdit.js
> @@ -31,6 +31,10 @@ Ext.define('PVE.storage.DirInputPanel', {
>  		uncheckedValue: 0,
>  		fieldLabel: gettext('Shared'),
>  	    },
> +	    {
> +		xtype: 'displayfield',

Might be better as a tooltip or do you think that's not prominent enough?

> +		value: gettext('Enable if the path is a location that is shared between the nodes in the cluster.'),

With regards to phrasing: maybe "Enable if the underlying file system is
already shared between nodes"?

> +	    },
>  	];
>  
>  	me.callParent();