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 DA0261FF13C for ; Thu, 28 May 2026 14:56:28 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 7D1A41D056; Thu, 28 May 2026 14:56:28 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <2b8508d2-8a09-4dc1-8893-179cef52bc87@proxmox.com> Date: Thu, 28 May 2026 14:56:24 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Beta Subject: Re: [PATCH datacenter-manager/yew-widget-toolkit 0/2] auto-installer: set proper tooltip for command line show/hide To: Thomas Lamprecht , Christoph Heiss , pdm-devel@lists.proxmox.com References: <20260528111123.1225933-1-c.heiss@proxmox.com> <7957db3c-9527-49fb-b58e-669ca7f4fd43@proxmox.com> Content-Language: en-US From: Dominik Csapak In-Reply-To: <7957db3c-9527-49fb-b58e-669ca7f4fd43@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: 1779972957299 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.049 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: ZQUGF63KIB6RXCLTVOEZKGGFHR7UY76H X-Message-ID-Hash: ZQUGF63KIB6RXCLTVOEZKGGFHR7UY76H 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 Datacenter Manager development discussion List-Help: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: On 5/28/26 2:15 PM, Thomas Lamprecht wrote: > Am 28.05.26 um 13:19 schrieb Dominik Csapak: >> i get what the end result should be, but i don't think we should >> override the 'password' feature with something else. > > Why not? A generic "this includes a secret" field seems to be a good > fit for both? Why duplicate that? (honest question) > Judging from the past, we generally don't have any such fields where it's not a password, so I don't think we'll use this often. I think we have to be careful what we add to the public API of the widgets, otherwise we'll add a ton of stuff we don't (often) use. E.g. the next one maybe needs a different icon for the peek trigger, or want it left, etc. Maybe the answer here could also be that the peek trigger be a custom one? then it's generic enough for my taste to include it. E.g. something like (would have to flesh out the details of course) pub peek_trigger: Option<(Trigger, bool)> (which could get a sensible default implementation) this way we could also get rid of the 'show_peek_icon' property and just set it to None on the use site Don't get me wrong, we can add this property if you prefer that. >> >> another way to do this would be to have a custom trigger >> on the use site and show '******' manually? >> >> >> i just don't believe we will have many uses for changing this tooltip.. > Sure, but what's the cost of having it vs. duplicating the field for > just having custom tooltips?