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 6F00971698 for ; Thu, 9 Sep 2021 08:57:02 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 624262DA53 for ; Thu, 9 Sep 2021 08:57:02 +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) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS id D51DB2DA44 for ; Thu, 9 Sep 2021 08:57:01 +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 8DFC34462E for ; Thu, 9 Sep 2021 08:57:01 +0200 (CEST) To: Thomas Lamprecht , Proxmox VE development discussion References: <20210906113231.61790-1-f.ebner@proxmox.com> <20210906113231.61790-7-f.ebner@proxmox.com> <47056631-ffd7-98cf-38a0-3c81178d56b7@proxmox.com> From: Fabian Ebner Message-ID: <37412679-e800-d02b-ec06-38905df86259@proxmox.com> Date: Thu, 9 Sep 2021 08:56:56 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.13.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <47056631-ffd7-98cf-38a0-3c81178d56b7@proxmox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 1.341 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 -1.922 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 manager 6/6] ui: cluster backup: use cluster-wide storage selector 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: Thu, 09 Sep 2021 06:57:02 -0000 Am 08.09.21 um 13:06 schrieb Thomas Lamprecht: > On 06.09.21 13:32, Fabian Ebner wrote: >> adapted from the existing storage selector. >> >> Previously, only the storages for the local node would be shown, which >> prevented configuring a job for remote nodes when the storage is not >> available on the local node. >> >> In contrast to the existing storage selector, no usage information is >> displayed. It's not readily available, and while it could be extracted >> from the global resource store, that's a bit messy, and in case a >> local storage is available on multiple nodes, there are multiple >> values to deal with. Instead, show the list of nodes where the storage >> is available and whether it is shared, which is relevant when seen >> from a cluster perspective. >> >> Signed-off-by: Fabian Ebner >> --- >> www/manager6/Makefile | 1 + >> www/manager6/dc/Backup.js | 5 +- >> www/manager6/form/ClusterStorageSelector.js | 96 +++++++++++++++++++++ >> 3 files changed, 99 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) >> create mode 100644 www/manager6/form/ClusterStorageSelector.js >> > > not to happy with that one in regards to code reuse. > > We either need to make this the parent of the node-specific one and hide combo-grid > columns depending on settings, or vice versa (this extends from the single one). > The former seems a bit more intuitive to me from a quick check, but no hard feelings > on that.. > Ok, I'll try to do one of those or maybe even use a single class and simply switch based on the presence of nodename.