From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from gate001.proxmox.com (gate001.proxmox.com [IPv6:2a0f:8001:1:32::40]) by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E36451FF0C1 for ; Wed, 26 Aug 2026 10:36:45 +0200 (CEST) Received: from gate001.proxmox.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by gate001.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 495012132F; Wed, 26 Aug 2026 10:36:45 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <382da81b-b48b-4047-9fb0-a9d355573902@proxmox.com> Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2026 10:36:35 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Beta Subject: Re: [PATCH manager v2] fix #7896: ui: qemu: show effective machine version for Windows guests To: Jakob Klocker , pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com References: <20260824130155.249596-1-j.klocker@proxmox.com> Content-Language: en-US From: Dominik Csapak In-Reply-To: <20260824130155.249596-1-j.klocker@proxmox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Bm-Milter-Handled: 55990f41-d878-4baa-be0a-ee34c49e34d2 X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp: 1787733364891 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.701 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address DMARC_MISSING 0.1 Missing DMARC policy KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment (newer systems) RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED -2.3 Sender listed at https://www.dnswl.org/, medium trust SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record Message-ID-Hash: TXRRKXDPYSMT5INDYEH7WRAIGTKLMEOH X-Message-ID-Hash: TXRRKXDPYSMT5INDYEH7WRAIGTKLMEOH X-MailFrom: d.csapak@proxmox.com X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; loop; banned-address; emergency; member-moderation; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.10 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion List-Help: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: one comment inline On 8/24/26 3:01 PM, Jakob Klocker wrote: [snip] > q35: (get) => get('type') === 'q35', > @@ -102,10 +104,21 @@ Ext.define('PVE.qemu.MachineInputPanel', { > } > > if (me.isWindows) { > - if (values.machine === '__default__') { > - values.version = 'pc-i440fx-5.1'; > - } else if (values.machine === 'q35') { > - values.version = 'pc-q35-5.1'; > + if (values.machine === '__default__' || values.machine === 'q35') { > + let effective = PVE.Utils.qemu_implicit_machine_version( > + values.machine, > + values.creationQemu, > + values.arch, > + ); > + me.getViewModel().set({ > + effectiveVersionLabel: effective + ' ' + gettext('(implicit)'), > + implicitVersion: true, > + }); > + me.setAdvancedVisible(true); > + // flush the binding, then re-baseline the reset value to it > + // otherwise the Reset button reverts to the field's empty initial value > + me.getViewModel().notify(); > + me.lookup('effectiveVersion').resetOriginalValue(); under which circumstances is this necessary? even with those two statements deleted, i can't trigger it to have the reset button enabled? in general, we probably shouldn't mess with the 'resetOriginalValue' too much, but if we do, having the steps where this is necessary would be good (does not have to be a comment, in the commit message is fine for me)