From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: 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 51D9D65B15 for ; Wed, 4 Nov 2020 18:04:02 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 3FF44FA88 for ; Wed, 4 Nov 2020 18:04:02 +0100 (CET) Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (proxmox-new.maurer-it.com [212.186.127.180]) (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 id 232DBFA7B for ; Wed, 4 Nov 2020 18:04:01 +0100 (CET) Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id DE4A846038 for ; Wed, 4 Nov 2020 18:04:00 +0100 (CET) From: Thomas Lamprecht To: =?UTF-8?Q?Fabian_Gr=c3=bcnbichler?= , Proxmox Backup Server development discussion References: <20201104131026.4017010-1-f.gruenbichler@proxmox.com> <1604497203.f21gwhaa55.astroid@nora.none> Message-ID: <36da0d46-e9d9-103b-6166-fbd977b6e84f@proxmox.com> Date: Wed, 4 Nov 2020 18:03:59 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:83.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/83.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <1604497203.f21gwhaa55.astroid@nora.none> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL -0.118 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment NICE_REPLY_A -0.001 Looks like a legit reply (A) 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 Subject: Re: [pbs-devel] [PATCH proxmox-backup 1/4] www: don't default to hourly sync job schedule X-BeenThere: pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox Backup Server development discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 04 Nov 2020 17:04:02 -0000 On 04.11.20 14:46, Fabian Gr=C3=BCnbichler wrote: > On November 4, 2020 2:38 pm, Thomas Lamprecht wrote: >> On 04.11.20 14:10, Fabian Gr=C3=BCnbichler wrote: >>> this breaks editing disabled sync jobs, and is also not consistent wi= th >> >> just means that we should only set it onCreate.. >=20 > also fine for me. >=20 >>> the backend defaults. >> >> which is? FWICT, there's no default in the backend - I want one here, >> this can be easily edited and it's just better UX to avoid more decisi= ons >> which at this point may not be clear. >=20 > the backend's default is None/no schedule. for such simply values I=20 > don't see much value in having a different default in the GUI, but I=20 > don't care much either way. A default for the backend would be a bit subtle and hard to change, if we= 'd like to do so in the future. In the UI it's clearly presented to the user, the= y can easily change it and we're pretty free to adapt it there if feedback show= s that would be better. One should IMO not see the UI as plain "HTML form" like extension of an A= PI, if it would be that easy we could just auto generate it :) >=20 > for users that don't know much about sync jobs it might not be that=20 > obvious how to have no schedule or even that that is an option when=20 > creating a new one (you manually have to delete the value in the=20 > picker/combobox). >=20 creating a new job without schedule seldom makes sense, I'd argue. Also, = that it can be temporarily be paused by deleting the schedule is subtle anyway, and I= MO bad UX. Not setting a default does not helps to suggest that is the case either, = if we want to make this clear, an explicit enable/disable checkbox which enable= s/disables also the schedule field could be added. But, an user also can just delete the job entry, if they just need to dis= able it and cannot relate to the "clear schedule =3D=3D disable", there's no relevant= state full information bound to a job. So, I do not see the need for it. Again, to much words and pedantry for such a simple thing, sorry about th= at :-)