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 D077B6929A
for <pmg-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon, 22 Mar 2021 10:01:28 +0100 (CET)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id C7DA7211EB
for <pmg-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon, 22 Mar 2021 10:00:58 +0100 (CET)
Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (proxmox-new.maurer-it.com
[212.186.127.180])
(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 firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS id C4B8F211D9
for <pmg-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon, 22 Mar 2021 10:00:57 +0100 (CET)
Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
by proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 8D08D4038E
for <pmg-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon, 22 Mar 2021 10:00:57 +0100 (CET)
From: Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com>
To: pmg-devel@lists.proxmox.com
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2021 10:00:46 +0100
Message-Id: <20210322090046.26278-3-t.lamprecht@proxmox.com>
X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.20.1
In-Reply-To: <20210322090046.26278-1-t.lamprecht@proxmox.com>
References: <20210322090046.26278-1-t.lamprecht@proxmox.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0
AWL -0.046 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address
KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment
RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED -2.3 Sender listed at https://www.dnswl.org/,
medium trust
SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record
SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record
Subject: [pmg-devel] [PATCH] fix #3164: allow one to display all quarantined
spam mails
X-BeenThere: pmg-devel@lists.proxmox.com
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Proxmox Mail Gateway development discussion
<pmg-devel.lists.proxmox.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/options/pmg-devel>,
<mailto:pmg-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.proxmox.com/pipermail/pmg-devel/>
List-Post: <mailto:pmg-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
List-Help: <mailto:pmg-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pmg-devel>,
<mailto:pmg-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2021 09:01:28 -0000
If the API call returned more than one pmail entry, inject an "all"
entry which, if selected, drops the user parameter and loads the
quarantine mails of all users from the backend.
The webinterface has only some issues regarding deselection (all in
the grid header or if we need to deselect due to the search filtering
out some elements) - for that the underlying issue was found and a
widget toolkit patch was provided.
The rest seems now pretty performant, albeit more than a few 100k
mails may become a problem here. But, in such big setups the mail
admin won't tinker to much whith the users mail anyway, if they are
even alowed to do so depending on their jurisdictions privacy laws
and companies privacy policy.
So, basically this is more for evaluation or for smaller setups but
got quite often requested, and as there's not more data
exposed/returned then already available I see no real argument
against it.
Signed-off-by: Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com>
---
js/QuarantineList.js | 26 +++++++++++++++++++++++---
1 file changed, 23 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/js/QuarantineList.js b/js/QuarantineList.js
index c5cab6e..9280489 100644
--- a/js/QuarantineList.js
+++ b/js/QuarantineList.js
@@ -76,6 +76,10 @@ Ext.define('PMG.QuarantineList', {
}
me.setEmptyText();
}
+ // deselect all first, else ExtJS does some funky O(n^3) comparissions as it tries
+ // to keep the selection, but we do not care for that on a new load anyway
+ view.getSelectionModel().deselectAll();
+
store.load(function() {
if (me.savedPosition !== undefined) {
if (store.getCount() - 1 < me.savedPosition) {
@@ -112,7 +116,11 @@ Ext.define('PMG.QuarantineList', {
setUser: function(user) {
let view = this.getView();
let params = view.getStore().getProxy().getExtraParams();
- params.pmail = user;
+ if (user === null) {
+ delete params.pmail;
+ } else {
+ params.pmail = user;
+ }
view.getStore().getProxy().setExtraParams(params);
view.user = user;
},
@@ -164,7 +172,11 @@ Ext.define('PMG.QuarantineList', {
let me = this;
me.savedPosition = undefined;
me.allowPositionSave = false;
- me.setUser(value);
+ if (value === 'all') {
+ me.setUser(null);
+ } else {
+ me.setUser(value);
+ }
me.load();
},
@@ -214,7 +226,8 @@ Ext.define('PMG.QuarantineList', {
return match;
});
if (toDeselect.length > 0) {
- sm.deselect(toDeselect);
+ sm.deselect(toDeselect, true);
+ sm.maybeFireSelectionChange(true);
}
return selectedRecordId !== null && clearSelectedMail;
},
@@ -313,6 +326,13 @@ Ext.define('PMG.QuarantineList', {
renderer: Ext.htmlEncode,
},
],
+ listeners: {
+ load: function(store, records, successfull) {
+ if (successfull && records.length > 1) {
+ store.insert(0, { mail: 'all' });
+ }
+ },
+ },
},
queryMode: 'local',
editable: true,
--
2.20.1