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 0988498301 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Sat, 22 Apr 2023 09:22:09 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id E0B7121D95 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Sat, 22 Apr 2023 09:21:38 +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>; Sat, 22 Apr 2023 09:21:38 +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 3C0FA41E87 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Sat, 22 Apr 2023 09:21:38 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <f02319ef-4b8d-7860-76db-be0a29ca45d2@proxmox.com> Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2023 09:21:36 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Content-Language: en-GB To: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>, Dominik Csapak <d.csapak@proxmox.com> References: <20230420080616.836255-1-d.csapak@proxmox.com> <20230420080616.836255-3-d.csapak@proxmox.com> From: Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com> In-Reply-To: <20230420080616.836255-3-d.csapak@proxmox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL -0.089 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 T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE -0.01 - Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [RFC PATCH manager 3/3] ui: enable multiColumnSort for storage backup content 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: Sat, 22 Apr 2023 07:22:09 -0000 On 20/04/2023 10:06, Dominik Csapak wrote: > this enables the user to sort the grid by multiple columns > simultaneously, e.g. by vmid and then by date > > Signed-off-by: Dominik Csapak <d.csapak@proxmox.com> > --- > sending as rfc because i'm not so sure about this. > > on one hand, this allows to recreate the original sorting if users want > that, but the selection is a bit weird. there is no way to 'unsort' the original sorting was strange and confusing, while it would be at least not as confusing with the columns shown it's IMO just not a good fit for a simple grid. If we want to make this better, we should adopt a tree view, Fiona even made a patch for that IIRC, either when she reworked the content view or when adding group pruning in Proxmox VE (we definitively talked about doing that off list, the patch might be imagination — didn't check). Albeit tree views and sorting are naturally not the greatest thing, an configurable "group by VMID" checkbox could be the most flexible variant (meaning most edge cases and probabky code too..) > columns again, it simply uses the last 3 columns that were clicked > > especially with the last patch (statefulness) it becomes weird, but > maybe we want this more than we want it to be stateful? tbh. I want neither ;-) At least the chosen full-grid stateful way, see reply to respective patch.