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 57D209B9E6 for ; Tue, 21 Nov 2023 12:03:49 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 3CE4D70F4 for ; Tue, 21 Nov 2023 12:03:19 +0100 (CET) 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)) (No client certificate requested) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS for ; Tue, 21 Nov 2023 12:03:18 +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 6575F40EB9 for ; Tue, 21 Nov 2023 12:03:18 +0100 (CET) Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2023 12:03:17 +0100 (CET) From: Christian Ebner To: Fiona Ebner , Proxmox VE development discussion Message-ID: <1925251120.455.1700564597724@webmail.proxmox.com> In-Reply-To: <5b15cdca-9203-469a-8a6f-8922db178302@proxmox.com> References: <20231121090012.23571-1-c.ebner@proxmox.com> <5b15cdca-9203-469a-8a6f-8922db178302@proxmox.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 Importance: Normal X-Mailer: Open-Xchange Mailer v7.10.6-Rev54 X-Originating-Client: open-xchange-appsuite X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.054 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 T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE -0.01 - Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH pve-manager] ui: node summary: use SI units for HD usage 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: Tue, 21 Nov 2023 11:03:49 -0000 > On 21.11.2023 11:05 CET Fiona Ebner wrote: > > > Am 21.11.23 um 10:00 schrieb Christian Ebner: > > diff --git a/www/manager6/node/StatusView.js b/www/manager6/node/StatusView.js > > index d34724f7..a6975b6e 100644 > > --- a/www/manager6/node/StatusView.js > > +++ b/www/manager6/node/StatusView.js > > @@ -72,7 +72,9 @@ Ext.define('PVE.node.StatusView', { > > title: '/ ' + gettext('HD space'), > > valueField: 'rootfs', > > maxField: 'rootfs', > > - renderer: Proxmox.Utils.render_node_size_usage, > > + renderer: function(record) { > > + return Proxmox.Utils.render_size_usage(record.used, record.total, true); > > + }, > > Would it make more sense to change render_node_size_usage directly? Then > PMG and PBS would also get the change. Like this, it will be > inconsistent between the products, or? render_node_size_usage is used also for rendering memory size information, where we want IEC units. Therefore, my initial approach was adding the `useSI` parameter to `render_node_size_usage` as second parameter, which however breaks all the other renderer invocations, I assume because the renderer invocation passes along multiple parameters. This is why I opted for the invocation as is. PBS already shows the HD usage values in SI units. Cheers, Chris