From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: 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) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by lists.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C2FE29916C for ; Thu, 20 Apr 2023 15:40:09 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 9DA4C2BDD9 for ; Thu, 20 Apr 2023 15:39:39 +0200 (CEST) Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (proxmox-new.maurer-it.com [94.136.29.106]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS for ; Thu, 20 Apr 2023 15:39:38 +0200 (CEST) Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 3A54645E84 for ; Thu, 20 Apr 2023 15:39:38 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <019c09b0-3203-99f1-4e2d-aa9bfe0f78e5@proxmox.com> Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2023 15:39:37 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.10.0 Content-Language: en-US To: Proxmox VE development discussion , Dominik Csapak References: <20230420080616.836255-1-d.csapak@proxmox.com> <20230420080616.836255-3-d.csapak@proxmox.com> From: Aaron Lauterer In-Reply-To: <20230420080616.836255-3-d.csapak@proxmox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 1.212 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 NICE_REPLY_A -2.597 Looks like a legit reply (A) SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE -0.01 - Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [RFC PATCH manager 3/3] ui: enable multiColumnSort for storage backup content X-BeenThere: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2023 13:40:09 -0000 I tried the series including this patch and yeah... sorting becomes very unpredicatable and weird. AFAICT it also depends on which order the last 3 columns are selected. The old behavior was that it was first sorted by VMID and then within the VMID by date right? Is there a way to group by row property in ExtJS grids? I personally would probably not use this patch. On 4/20/23 10:06, Dominik Csapak wrote: > this enables the user to sort the grid by multiple columns > simultaneously, e.g. by vmid and then by date > > Signed-off-by: Dominik Csapak > --- > sending as rfc because i'm not so sure about this. > > on one hand, this allows to recreate the original sorting if users want > that, but the selection is a bit weird. there is no way to 'unsort' > columns again, it simply uses the last 3 columns that were clicked > > especially with the last patch (statefulness) it becomes weird, but > maybe we want this more than we want it to be stateful? > > www/manager6/storage/BackupView.js | 1 + > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) > > diff --git a/www/manager6/storage/BackupView.js b/www/manager6/storage/BackupView.js > index bb045f5b6..ebc476747 100644 > --- a/www/manager6/storage/BackupView.js > +++ b/www/manager6/storage/BackupView.js > @@ -5,6 +5,7 @@ Ext.define('PVE.storage.BackupView', { > > showColumns: ['name', 'notes', 'protected', 'date', 'format', 'size'], > > + multiColumnSort: true, > stateful: true, > stateId: 'storage-backup-content', >