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 13CE91FF183 for ; Wed, 5 Nov 2025 11:37:40 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id F231E20701; Wed, 5 Nov 2025 11:38:19 +0100 (CET) Mime-Version: 1.0 Date: Wed, 05 Nov 2025 11:37:47 +0100 Message-Id: From: "Lukas Wagner" To: "Dominik Csapak" , "Proxmox Datacenter Manager development discussion" , "Lukas Wagner" X-Mailer: aerc 0.21.0-0-g5549850facc2-dirty References: <20251103123521.266258-1-l.wagner@proxmox.com> <20251103123521.266258-3-l.wagner@proxmox.com> In-Reply-To: X-Bm-Milter-Handled: 55990f41-d878-4baa-be0a-ee34c49e34d2 X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp: 1762339049055 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.029 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 RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_CERTIFIED_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to Validity was blocked. See https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for more information. RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to Validity was blocked. See https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for more information. RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_SAFE_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to Validity was blocked. See https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for more information. SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record Subject: Re: [pdm-devel] [PATCH datacenter-manager v2 02/12] pdm-config: views: add support for view-filters X-BeenThere: pdm-devel@lists.proxmox.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox Datacenter Manager development discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Reply-To: Proxmox Datacenter Manager development discussion Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: pdm-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com Sender: "pdm-devel" On Wed Nov 5, 2025 at 11:07 AM CET, Dominik Csapak wrote: > high level comments: > > would it be nicer if we use the ApiSectionDataEntry trait like we do for > Remotes ? Wasn't aware of this trait - will change it accordingly. Thanks! > that way we can use the typed section config helpers > (which are a bit more ergonomic to use later in the CRUD api calls) > > Also if we just use one file for the views, is it necessary > to put it in a views folder? Yeah, the structure was chosen due to the initial idea of separating the filter definition and the view template. > > I'm currently thinking about how to save the layouts, and (as we > recently discussed off-list) I'm leaning towards simply saving the > layout as a json string into the config here, as that makes the > loading/saving/updating/deleting much easier for both view filters > and layouts (no need to track/lock both configs, etc.) > > We can of course leave it , but then we have to make sure to create > the directory correctly :) > I have no hard feelings about this. Generally I'm fine with saving the template-JSON data directly into this struct (we can still extend it with 'externally' defined templates later and introduce a new key that just contains the ID of that). If we pack everthing into one struct, I'd probably rename it from ViewFilter to just View (same for the API parameters). So, for v3 I'd just do a plain `views.cfg` in the top-level config dir. _______________________________________________ pdm-devel mailing list pdm-devel@lists.proxmox.com https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pdm-devel