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 16A291FF13A for ; Wed, 15 Apr 2026 16:18:59 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 6609F170B5; Wed, 15 Apr 2026 16:18:58 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2026 16:18:23 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Beta Subject: Re: [PATCH manager v2] ui: ha: add disarm/re-arm button To: Dominik Rusovac , pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com References: <20260415064118.33290-1-d.rusovac@proxmox.com> <900084a5-9466-4a98-b653-2c97fc863f38@proxmox.com> Content-Language: en-US From: Dominik Csapak In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Bm-Milter-Handled: 55990f41-d878-4baa-be0a-ee34c49e34d2 X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp: 1776262625959 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.048 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 RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_CERTIFIED_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to Validity was blocked. See https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for more information. RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to Validity was blocked. See https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for more information. RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_SAFE_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to Validity was blocked. See https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for more information. 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: QJKBDPXGXZPCTOAJZFGYR5EQ6IRNKQAM X-Message-ID-Hash: QJKBDPXGXZPCTOAJZFGYR5EQ6IRNKQAM 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 4/15/26 3:30 PM, Dominik Rusovac wrote: > thx for the comments! I will send a v3 > > On Wed Apr 15, 2026 at 2:32 PM CEST, Dominik Csapak wrote: >> what i miss with using these is some feedback when i activated them. >> >> This is probably more due to the backend decision, but >> when clicking arm/disarm, there is nothing happening in the gui at >> first, no spinning icon, no change in state.. > > regarding feedback after activating either of them: one can see the > Status changing in the Status panel, which exactly traces what's going > on for every node, in particular it reveals the armed-state in the > Status of fencing > > if that's not enough feedback, I'd look into other possible solutions in > more detail on my test machine, it multiple seconds from clicking ok to the status actually changing, so this might be confusing, especially if the cluster/connection is not the fastest and the updates take longer to arrive. > >> >> I think there are a few possible solutions on this, but >> i'm not super deep in the ha stack, so sorry in advance if >> some can't work: >> * use a worker that waits for the change of the ha state, e.g. >> via polling. this could directly be shown in the gui >> * mark the requested state immediately somewhere and return >> it with the overall ha state, so we see in the gui what is happening >> * 'fake' the progress until we see a status change >> (i don't really like this, since it's prone to errors when e.g. >> one admin disarms, the other arms again, but the gui does not >> get an updated state in the meantime) >> >> >> other comments inline >> >> On 4/15/26 8:40 AM, Dominik Rusovac wrote: >>> The button to disarm HA in either of the resource modes ('freeze' or >>> 'ignore') is disabled as long as HA is disarmed. Analogously, the button >>> to arm HA is disabled as long as HA is not disarmed. >>> >>> The icons ('unlink' and 'link') are chosen to emphasize that "Disarm HA" >>> and "Arm HA" are complements. There may be more suitable pairs of icons >>> though. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Dominik Rusovac >>> --- >>> changes since v1: >>> * use camel case for function names >>> * choose clearer parameter: 'comp' -> 'menuItem' >>> * choose clearer function names: >>> - 'disarm' -> 'handleDisarmButton' >>> - 'rearm' -> 'handleArmButton' >>> * deduplicate translation keys >>> * use same translation keys as for menu items >>> * remove obsolete 'params' >>> * change button text "Re-arm HA" to "Arm HA" >>> * remove extra new-line >>> >>> www/manager6/ha/Status.js | 104 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >>> www/manager6/ha/StatusView.js | 8 +++ >>> 2 files changed, 112 insertions(+) >>> > > [snip] > >>> + controller: { >>> + xclass: 'Ext.app.ViewController', >>> + >>> + checkHaStatus: function (isDisarmed) { >>> + let vm = this.getViewModel(); >>> + vm.set('haDisarmed', isDisarmed); >>> + }, >>> + >> >> this method does not 'check' it 'sets' the HA status? >> >> IMHO a better name would be: >> >> setHaStatus >> or similar >> >> >> also, this is only used once, so it's probably better >> to just call the vm.set inline >> > > thx, I will inline it > > [snip] > >>> + >>> + dockedItems: [ >>> + { >>> + xtype: 'toolbar', >>> + dock: 'top', >>> + items: [ >> >> it should be able to shorten that to just using 'tbar' >> >> tbar: [ >> { ... }, // button 1 >> { ... }, // button 2 >> ], >> > > indeed, thx, will use 'tbar' instead > >>> + { >>> + text: gettext('Disarm HA'), >>> + iconCls: 'fa fa-unlink', >>> + bind: { >>> + disabled: '{haDisarmed}', >>> + }, >>> + menu: [ >>> + { >>> + text: gettext('Freeze'), >>> + iconCls: 'fa fa-snowflake-o', >>> + mode: 'freeze', >>> + handler: 'handleDisarmButton', >>> + }, >>> + { >>> + text: gettext('Ignore'), >>> + iconCls: 'fa fa-eye-slash', >>> + mode: 'ignore', >>> + handler: 'handleDisarmButton', >>> + }, >>> + ], >>> + }, >>> + { >>> + text: gettext('Arm HA'), >>> + iconCls: 'fa fa-link', >>> + bind: { >>> + disabled: '{!haDisarmed}', >>> + }, >>> + handler: 'handleArmButton', >>> + }, >>> + ], >> >> i'm not totally against having two buttons here, but since >> there is always only one or the other active, wouldn't >> it make more sense to hide the button that >> can't do anything? (though i admit we do most often show the >> unusable buttons across our gui, so it's fine too) >> > > tbh, I just tried to adhere to what I found in other places of the gui > > if hiding the unusable button is more desirable, I can go for that > option instead > >> At least i would probably switch the position of these, >> since the more (for the lack of a better word) 'affirming' action >> is usually at the beginning (like 'add' or 'start') and the other >> options comes later (like 'remove' or 'shutdown') >> >> so >> >> | Arm | Disarm | >> >> reads more logical to me than >> >> | Disarm | Arm | >> > > in retrospect, I think my reasoning behind this positioning was rather > about the more 'obvious' or 'natural' action, that is: HA is > from the get-go (and also usually) armed and can only be (re-)armed, > once it's been disarmed - just like stopping something is only possible > once this very something's started > > I see your reasoning though, and if we do not go for hiding either of > the buttons, I do not mind changing the positioning > >>> + }, >>> + ], >>> + > > [snip] > >>> + me.rstore.on('load', function () { >>> + let fencing = store.findRecord('type', 'fencing'); >>> + let disarmed = fencing && fencing.get('armed-state') === 'disarmed'; >>> + >>> + me.fireEvent('hastatuschange', disarmed); >> >> just a remark, not even a nit: >> >> the usual convention in extjs is that the first parameter of an event is >> the component itself, so it would usually be >> >> me.fireEvent('foo', me, ); >> >> we (and extjs itself) don't always adhere to that, so it's fine >> here, but wanted to note it anyway >> > > thx for this informative remark > > [snip]