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 39DFC1FF13A for ; Wed, 27 May 2026 09:52:37 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id A887A124F9; Wed, 27 May 2026 09:52:33 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <98fdf0e9-afeb-4064-8b24-a78c00445a0b@proxmox.com> Date: Wed, 27 May 2026 09:51:59 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [PATCH datacenter-manager] ui: auto-installer: align network-tab with disks-tab To: pdm-devel@lists.proxmox.com References: <20260527074535.32634-1-h.laimer@proxmox.com> From: Hannes Laimer Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: <20260527074535.32634-1-h.laimer@proxmox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Bm-Milter-Handled: 55990f41-d878-4baa-be0a-ee34c49e34d2 X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp: 1779868294428 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: GFIKMPPMCZQ6C2KERDHH6GDBR35XEHEJ X-Message-ID-Hash: GFIKMPPMCZQ6C2KERDHH6GDBR35XEHEJ 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: On 2026-05-27 09:45, Hannes Laimer wrote: > 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..5897fe3 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_large_field( this should just be `with_field` we only have one col in the network tab, will send a v2, sorry for the noise > tr!("Network Device Filters"), > KeyValueList::new() > .value(