From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <a.lauterer@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 68B53A2AEB
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Tue, 20 Jun 2023 12:18:43 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 4998533473
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Tue, 20 Jun 2023 12:18:43 +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))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Tue, 20 Jun 2023 12:18:42 +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 767DA41BEF
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Tue, 20 Jun 2023 12:18:42 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <23bab32a-abc9-52a4-e4b9-3f35c9c5547f@proxmox.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2023 12:18:41 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/102.12.0
Content-Language: en-US
To: Dominik Csapak <d.csapak@proxmox.com>,
 Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
References: <20230619141307.119430-1-d.csapak@proxmox.com>
 <20230619141307.119430-4-d.csapak@proxmox.com>
 <bad242d3-7a01-d063-6f08-9bc27c55cb7b@proxmox.com>
 <b11761e4-6327-3a40-4881-e8240811c9a4@proxmox.com>
From: Aaron Lauterer <a.lauterer@proxmox.com>
In-Reply-To: <b11761e4-6327-3a40-4881-e8240811c9a4@proxmox.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results:  0
 AWL -0.034 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           -0.102 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 4/4] ui: pci mapping: rework
 mapping panel for better user experience
X-BeenThere: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel.lists.proxmox.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/options/pve-devel>, 
 <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.proxmox.com/pipermail/pve-devel/>
List-Post: <mailto:pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
List-Help: <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel>, 
 <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2023 10:18:43 -0000



On 6/20/23 11:57, Dominik Csapak wrote:
> On 6/20/23 11:35, Aaron Lauterer wrote:
>> I like the approach as it cleans up the overloaded tbar that has items that 
>> are only valid in certain contexts.
>>
>> Two small nits from a UX POV:
>>
>> - double clicking any PCI device should open the edit dialog for the node, 
>> similar to double clicking the node itself
> 
> makes sense imo
> 
>> - the Action Column should probably be further left and not on the far right 
>> side by default. I personally like it to be the second column from the left as 
>> all other columns are rather informal.
> 
> mhmm can do that, but how i refactored that seems to be a bit hacky to inject an 
> actioncolumn at a
> certain position, but technically not a problem

But aren't we doing that already in the content view of PBS? AFAIK it is the 3rd 
column there.

> 
>>
>>
>> I know it is kinda late, but would it be hard to add the "Device" column from 
>> the PCI device selection grid to the overview as well? This way one can easily 
>> verify that they got the right devices by name.
>> But probably it is a bit harder to gather the info from the other nodes?
>>
> 
> we already query the pci list of each node, so we could extract that from there
> but this only works if the user has Sys.Audit which may not be the case.
> then the column would be empty
> 
>> On 6/19/23 16:13, Dominik Csapak wrote:
>>> by removing the confusing buttons in the toolbar and adding them as
>>> actions in an actioncolumn. There a only relevant actions are visible
>>> and get a more expressive tooltip
>>>
>>> with this, we now differentiate between 4 modes of the edit window:
>>> * create a new mapping altogether
>>>    - shows all fields
>>> * edit existing mapping on top level
>>>    - show only 'global' fields (comment+mdev), so no mappings
>>> * add new host mapping
>>>    - shows nodeselector, mapping and mdev, but mdev is disabled
>>>      (informational only)
>>> * edit existing host mapping
>>>    - show selected node (displayfield) mdev and mappings, but only
>>>      mappings are editable
>>>
>>> we have to split the nodeselector into two fields, since the disabling
>>> cbind does not pass through to the editconfig (and thus makes the form
>>> invalid if we try that)
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Dominik Csapak <d.csapak@proxmox.com>
>>> ---
>>> this is not intended to be applied as is, rather i'd like some feedback
>>> on the approach (@thomas, @aaron ?) so that if we want to do it this way
>>> i can also do it for the usb mappings
>>>
>>> the other approach mentioned off-list can still be done
>>> (having a full grid with all mappings regardless of the node)
>>> maybe only for usb devices (there it makes imho more sense) but then
>>> we'd have two interfaces for the mappings instead of one
>>>
> 
>