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 5D08D1FF13A for ; Wed, 27 May 2026 09:56:12 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id AEC721282C; Wed, 27 May 2026 09:56:11 +0200 (CEST) From: Hannes Laimer To: pdm-devel@lists.proxmox.com Subject: [PATCH datacenter-manager v2] ui: auto-installer: align network-tab with disks-tab Date: Wed, 27 May 2026 09:56:06 +0200 Message-ID: <20260527075606.40696-1-h.laimer@proxmox.com> X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.47.3 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Bm-Milter-Handled: 55990f41-d878-4baa-be0a-ee34c49e34d2 X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp: 1779868542369 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.083 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: MKBOAHGPMUXYBXSNWSUE7FUNKBYBWMS6 X-Message-ID-Hash: MKBOAHGPMUXYBXSNWSUE7FUNKBYBWMS6 X-MailFrom: h.laimer@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 Datacenter Manager development discussion List-Help: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: We don't show the advanced checkbox, so having the filter in the advanced section will always have it hidden. This prevents submitting cause the filter is required for static ip configurations. The disks form has the same scenario, "advanced filtering" required based on form input. Not having it in advanced also makes sense cause advanced usually implies optionality, which this is very much not for static, and for dhcp this filter is ignored by the installer. Signed-off-by: Hannes Laimer --- ui/src/remotes/auto_installer/prepared_answer_form.rs | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/ui/src/remotes/auto_installer/prepared_answer_form.rs b/ui/src/remotes/auto_installer/prepared_answer_form.rs index e6c1bd0..477a71f 100644 --- a/ui/src/remotes/auto_installer/prepared_answer_form.rs +++ b/ui/src/remotes/auto_installer/prepared_answer_form.rs @@ -400,8 +400,8 @@ pub fn render_network_options_form( .name("netif-name-pinning-enabled") .default(config.netif_name_pinning_enabled), ) - .with_advanced_spacer() - .with_advanced_field( + .with_spacer() + .with_field( tr!("Network Device Filters"), KeyValueList::new() .value( -- 2.47.3