From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [IPv6:2a01:7e0:0:424::9]) by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 450261FF2AB for ; Wed, 17 Jul 2024 14:27:27 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 570EB3B039; Wed, 17 Jul 2024 14:27:55 +0200 (CEST) Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2024 14:27:51 +0200 From: Christoph Heiss To: Thomas Lamprecht Message-ID: <6jymfxzmamjacos23knb24loac557rnbvkwk5k4iokde6gwuih@xh6y7wx76ror> References: <20240716093250.576370-1-c.heiss@proxmox.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.020 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 Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH manager] www: utils: fix inconsistency in host cpu usage display in search view 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: , Reply-To: Proxmox VE development discussion Cc: Proxmox VE development discussion Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: pve-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com Sender: "pve-devel" On Tue, Jul 16, 2024 at 06:07:10PM GMT, Thomas Lamprecht wrote: > Am 16/07/2024 um 11:31 schrieb Christoph Heiss: > > Between the number of CPUs and the actual label, a space was missing - > > resulting in an inconsistency vs. the "CPU usage" column. > > > > Also, fix a rather nonsensical check for `maxcpu` above - noticed that > > while comparing the implementation to that of Proxmox.Utils.render_cpu(). > > can we split this in a different patch? it's rather unrelated. Sure, I'll re-send them as separate patches. > > Also I think the error here was the lacking parenthesis, i.e., the > following minimal change would make the check also correct > > if (!(Ext.isNumeric(maxcpu) && maxcpu >= 1)) { > > But I still like yours more, I've just looked at how Proxmox.Utils.render_cpu does it and took that check verbatim from there. > just wanted to point out that this was > probably a simple typo or incompletely moving from one variant to > the other, not straight out bogus in intend. Of course, that was my thinking too - that is was just a honest typo. Should probably have formulated that a bit different. > > > > > Signed-off-by: Christoph Heiss > > --- > > www/manager6/Utils.js | 5 +++-- > > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/www/manager6/Utils.js b/www/manager6/Utils.js > > index f5608944d..6a0ecc98f 100644 > > --- a/www/manager6/Utils.js > > +++ b/www/manager6/Utils.js > > @@ -1073,13 +1073,14 @@ Ext.define('PVE.Utils', { > > } > > var maxcpu = node.data.maxcpu || 1; > > > > - if (!Ext.isNumeric(maxcpu) && (maxcpu >= 1)) { > > + if (!Ext.isNumeric(maxcpu) || maxcpu < 1) { > > return ''; > > } > > > > var per = (record.data.cpu/maxcpu) * record.data.maxcpu * 100; > > + const cpu_label = maxcpu > 1 ? 'CPUs' : 'CPU'; > > > > - return per.toFixed(1) + '% of ' + maxcpu.toString() + (maxcpu > 1 ? 'CPUs' : 'CPU'); > > + return `${per.toFixed(1)}% of ${maxcpu} ${cpu_label}`; > > }, > > > > render_bandwidth: function(value) { > _______________________________________________ pve-devel mailing list pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel