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 0059693C46
for <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Tue, 20 Sep 2022 14:10:43 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id D16FF1B7D9
for <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Tue, 20 Sep 2022 14:10:43 +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 <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Tue, 20 Sep 2022 14:10:43 +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 BC5CC43BF8
for <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Tue, 20 Sep 2022 14:10:42 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <895444e8-e091-272d-d6c2-355d902a547f@proxmox.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2022 14:10:37 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.13.0
Content-Language: en-US
To: pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com, Matthias Heiserer <m.heiserer@proxmox.com>
References: <20220919111347.187510-1-m.heiserer@proxmox.com>
From: Fiona Ebner <f.ebner@proxmox.com>
In-Reply-To: <20220919111347.187510-1-m.heiserer@proxmox.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0
AWL 1.129 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address
BAYES_00 -1.9 Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1%
KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment
NICE_REPLY_A -2.182 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: [pbs-devel] [PATCH v2 proxmox-backup] prune-simulator: allow
setting a custom date/time
X-BeenThere: pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Proxmox Backup Server development discussion
<pbs-devel.lists.proxmox.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/options/pbs-devel>,
<mailto:pbs-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.proxmox.com/pipermail/pbs-devel/>
List-Post: <mailto:pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
List-Help: <mailto:pbs-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pbs-devel>,
<mailto:pbs-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2022 12:10:44 -0000
Am 19.09.22 um 13:13 schrieb Matthias Heiserer:
> @@ -456,9 +461,10 @@ Ext.onReady(function() {
> let weekday = parseInt(Ext.Date.format(daysDate, 'w'), 10);
> if (weekdayFlags[weekday]) {
> timesOnSingleDay.forEach(function(time) {
> - backups.push({
> - backuptime: Ext.Date.subtract(new Date(time), Ext.Date.DAY, i),
> - });
> + const backuptime = Ext.Date.subtract(new Date(time), Ext.Date.DAY, i);
> + if (backuptime < vmDate) {
Should we use '<='? Feels more intuitive to me to include a backup that
happens at the end of the schedule. (Well, one could argue it's more
realistic with '<', because that backup wouldn't be completed in
practice :P)
> + backups.push({ backuptime: backuptime });
> + }
> });
> }
> }
(...)
> + items: [
> + {
> + xtype: 'datefield',
> + name: 'currentDate',
> + fieldLabel: 'Date',
> + allowBlank: false,
> + padding: '0 0 0 10',
Should we use "Y-m-d" format here, like in the backup listing? The
default seems to be "m/d/Y" and that is confusing to many people ;)
> + value: vm.get('now'),
> + listeners: {
> + select: function(_, day) {
While this seems to work as-is, I'd prefer a change listener here too,
see below.
> + const date = me.getViewModel().get('now');
> + date.setFullYear(
> + day.getFullYear(),
> + day.getMonth(),
> + day.getDay(),
getDay() returns the day of the week (0-6), not the day of the month.
getDate() seems to be the correct one, but yeah, it's a confusing name :/
> + );
> + },
> + },
> + },
> + {
> + xtype: 'timefield',
> + name: 'currentTime',
> + reference: 'currentTime',
> + fieldLabel: 'Time',
> + allowBlank: false,
> + padding: '0 0 0 10',
> + format: 'H:i',
> + // cant bind value because ExtJS sets the year
> + // to 2008 to protect against DST issues
> + // and date picker zeroes hour/minute
> + value: vm.get('now'),
> + listeners: {
> + select: function(_, record) {
Using a 'change' listener instead should make manual editing work too.
Currently, manual edits don't seem to update the view model entry.
> + const time = record.get('date');
> + const date = me.getViewModel().get('now');
> + date.setHours(time.getHours());
> + date.setMinutes(time.getMinutes());
> + },
> + },
> + },
> + ],
> },
> ],
> },