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 A27B61FF13B for ; Wed, 06 May 2026 17:11:05 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id AEAC02551D; Wed, 6 May 2026 17:11:04 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <070bb10d-8991-4562-9752-e9fd45f700ac@proxmox.com> Date: Wed, 6 May 2026 17:10:57 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Beta Subject: Re: [PATCH proxmox-backup v2 2/5] ui: datastore: fix content search empty list To: Erik Fastermann , pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com References: <20260506121332.21896-1-e.fastermann@proxmox.com> <20260506121332.21896-3-e.fastermann@proxmox.com> Content-Language: en-US From: Dominik Csapak In-Reply-To: <20260506121332.21896-3-e.fastermann@proxmox.com> 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: 1778080150149 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.050 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 Message-ID-Hash: MN6HLRKF44YEOLXVJTVZDM7YJOS65SRB X-Message-ID-Hash: MN6HLRKF44YEOLXVJTVZDM7YJOS65SRB 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 Backup Server development discussion List-Help: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: two things here: in general it would be good that the commit message explains why the code does something (done here) but also explain any non-obvious relation to the code (i.e. how does the change have this effect) i say this because to me it's not super obvious how this change can have this effect. I looked at the surrounding code a bit and IMO this part should not even be called when one clears the search (since we should return early in that case before the setTimeout) so i think the real fix is probably something else and the fact that this change fixes it for you is probably just a side effect... On 5/6/26 2:11 PM, Erik Fastermann wrote: > Display items again when searching by a non existing value and > clearing the search bar. > > Signed-off-by: Erik Fastermann > --- > www/datastore/Content.js | 1 - > 1 file changed, 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/www/datastore/Content.js b/www/datastore/Content.js > index e963d62f9..54e93bd3c 100644 > --- a/www/datastore/Content.js > +++ b/www/datastore/Content.js > @@ -961,7 +961,6 @@ Ext.define('PBS.DataStoreContent', { > // we do it a little bit later for the error mask to work > setTimeout(function () { > store.clearFilter(); > - store.getRoot().collapseChildren(true); > > store.beginUpdate(); > store.getRoot().cascadeBy({