From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <m.heiserer@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 2CBEE92E3B
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 15 Feb 2023 16:23:32 +0100 (CET)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 04A021FDD4
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 15 Feb 2023 16:23:02 +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, 15 Feb 2023 16:23:00 +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 E364D472CD
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 15 Feb 2023 16:22:59 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <30cf2d2b-104c-4546-08e4-d813d255c2a9@proxmox.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2023 16:22:58 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/102.6.0
Content-Language: en-US
To: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>,
Dominik Csapak <d.csapak@proxmox.com>, Stefan Sterz <s.sterz@proxmox.com>
Cc: Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com>
References: <20230215144619.1475962-1-s.sterz@proxmox.com>
<74529df9-3161-6918-9a2d-5940e3716e47@proxmox.com>
From: Matthias Heiserer <m.heiserer@proxmox.com>
In-Reply-To: <74529df9-3161-6918-9a2d-5940e3716e47@proxmox.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0
AWL -0.044 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
NICE_REPLY_A -0.35 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
Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH widget-toolkit] ui: remove extra parenthesis
from check to avoid eslint error
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, 15 Feb 2023 15:23:32 -0000
On 15.02.2023 16:03, Dominik Csapak wrote:
> On 2/15/23 15:46, Stefan Sterz wrote:
>> with the additional parenthesis eslint throws an error due to the
>> "no-extra-parens" rule that avoids unnecessary parenthesis. remove
>> them to get rid of the error.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Stefan Sterz <s.sterz@proxmox.com>
>> ---
>> i am personally not too happy with this eslint requirement here, but
>> the widget toolkit won't build otherwise.
>>
>> src/window/DiskSmart.js | 2 +-
>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/src/window/DiskSmart.js b/src/window/DiskSmart.js
>> index b538ea1..be52a4e 100644
>> --- a/src/window/DiskSmart.js
>> +++ b/src/window/DiskSmart.js
>> @@ -159,7 +159,7 @@ Ext.define('Proxmox.window.DiskSmart', {
>> {
>> name: 'real-value',
>> // FIXME remove with next major release (PBS 3.0)
>> - calculate: data => (data.normalized ?? false) ? data.raw :
>> data.value,
>> + calculate: data => data.normalized ?? false ? data.raw :
>> data.value,
>> },
>> {
>> name: 'real-normalized',
>
>
> imho the '?? false' part is unnecessary since that expression will
> already be coerced to a
> boolean and null and undefined are falsy...
>
> so i'd be happy with
> ----
> data.normalized ? data.raw : data.value,
Then that's bug in my original patch, as we should only fall back to
data.raw when data.normalized doesn't exist (i.e. old api version).
> ----
>
> any thoughts @thomas?
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> pve-devel mailing list
> pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com
> https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel
>
>