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 33C5970B36
 for <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Tue,  8 Jun 2021 08:29:51 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 1EAF017F01
 for <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Tue,  8 Jun 2021 08:29:21 +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) server-digest SHA256)
 (No client certificate requested)
 by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS id 071F117EF0
 for <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Tue,  8 Jun 2021 08:29:19 +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 C972B4233A
 for <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Tue,  8 Jun 2021 08:29:19 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <948e512c-b3c8-f80e-2710-c64d885f004f@proxmox.com>
Date: Tue, 8 Jun 2021 08:29:19 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:90.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/90.0
Content-Language: en-US
To: Proxmox Backup Server development discussion
 <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>, Dominik Csapak <d.csapak@proxmox.com>
References: <20210607130645.11838-1-d.csapak@proxmox.com>
From: Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com>
In-Reply-To: <20210607130645.11838-1-d.csapak@proxmox.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results:  0
 AWL 0.959 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
 SPF_HELO_NONE           0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record
 SPF_PASS               -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record
Subject: [pbs-devel] applied: [PATCH proxmox-backup 1/2] ui:
 form/DriveSelector: do not autoselect the drive
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, 08 Jun 2021 06:29:51 -0000

On 07.06.21 15:06, Dominik Csapak wrote:
> in case an invalid drive was configured, now it marks the field invalid
> instead of autoselecting the first valid one
> 
> this could have lead to users configuring the wrong drive in a tape-backup-job
> when they edited one
> 
> Signed-off-by: Dominik Csapak <d.csapak@proxmox.com>
> ---
>  www/tape/form/DriveSelector.js | 2 ++
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
> 
>

applied this already, but it should be obsolete once we bump widget-toolkit with my
patch for combo grid, at least if that patch does not causes problems and can stay.