From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <f.ebner@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 493A797F6D
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed,  6 Mar 2024 16:38:35 +0100 (CET)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 2A1AD1B6C3
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed,  6 Mar 2024 16:38:35 +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 <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed,  6 Mar 2024 16:38:34 +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 DB1844883A
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed,  6 Mar 2024 16:38:33 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <25b1183e-c156-4632-83e9-836766d23a4e@proxmox.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2024 16:38:33 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
To: Maximiliano Sandoval <m.sandoval@proxmox.com>
Cc: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
References: <20240306141458.472837-1-m.sandoval@proxmox.com>
 <ec1fb33f-5810-4a52-a1da-17656539b9df@proxmox.com>
 <s8owmqffkzz.fsf@proxmox.com>
From: Fiona Ebner <f.ebner@proxmox.com>
In-Reply-To: <s8owmqffkzz.fsf@proxmox.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results:  0
 AWL -0.071 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 manager] ceph: pool edit: set target ratio
 to 0 when the value is unset
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: Wed, 06 Mar 2024 15:38:35 -0000

Am 06.03.24 um 16:17 schrieb Maximiliano Sandoval:
> Fiona Ebner <f.ebner@proxmox.com> writes:
> 
>> It might be cleaner to just use
>> emptyValue: 0,
>> in the field declaration like is already done for the "Target Size"
>> field. And the same issue is also present for the "Min. # of PGs" field,
>> right?
> 
> Thanks for the emptyValue tip, I didn't know about it. Unfortunately, I
> tested this and it didn't work.
> 

Yes, sorry. Unfortunately, that is a feature specific to
PVE.form.SizeField, respectively Proxmox.form.SizeField.

For the "Min. # of PGs" field, we could add a similar feature to
proxmoxintegerfield. And the "Target Ratio" field is just a numberfield,
so would need yet another instance of the feature. So maybe not worth it.