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)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0F27892509 for ; Tue, 14 Mar 2023 11:20:38 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id E4AB41EF9B for ; Tue, 14 Mar 2023 11:20:37 +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, 14 Mar 2023 11:20:37 +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 19651447DE for ; Tue, 14 Mar 2023 11:20:37 +0100 (CET) From: Dominik Csapak To: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2023 11:20:36 +0100 Message-Id: <20230314102036.3340844-1-d.csapak@proxmox.com> X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.30.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.060 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address BAYES_00 -1.9 Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% 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 Subject: [pve-devel] [PATCH manager] ui: fix not opening 'bulk action' windows 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, 14 Mar 2023 10:20:38 -0000 we previously removed the 'filters' property from the store, but this has the effect that the filter array is only ever initialized when we try to access them via the specified api of extjs so instead of adding them manually to their array, use the 'addFilter' method of extjs also use 'getStore()' instead of directly accessing the store to be consistent with the extjs api use Signed-off-by: Dominik Csapak --- www/manager6/form/VMSelector.js | 6 +++--- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) diff --git a/www/manager6/form/VMSelector.js b/www/manager6/form/VMSelector.js index e9eb5dbaa..4c0bba137 100644 --- a/www/manager6/form/VMSelector.js +++ b/www/manager6/form/VMSelector.js @@ -211,7 +211,7 @@ Ext.define('PVE.form.VMSelector', { me.getStore().load({ params: { type: 'vm' } }); if (me.nodename) { - me.store.filters.add({ + me.getStore().addFilter({ property: 'node', exactMatch: true, value: me.nodename, @@ -230,7 +230,7 @@ Ext.define('PVE.form.VMSelector', { break; } if (statusfilter !== '') { - me.store.filters.add({ + me.getStore().addFilter([{ property: 'template', value: 0, }, { @@ -238,7 +238,7 @@ Ext.define('PVE.form.VMSelector', { operator: 'in', property: 'status', value: [statusfilter], - }); + }]); } } -- 2.30.2