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 6CB301FF133 for ; Mon, 11 May 2026 15:41:27 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 3F84B1A1CE; Mon, 11 May 2026 15:41:27 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <70775287-c5c8-41ba-abef-b4e6ea71d5f4@proxmox.com> Date: Mon, 11 May 2026 15:40:01 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [PATCH pve-manager v4 15/17] ui: cpu flags selector: allow filtering out flags supported on 0 nodes To: Arthur Bied-Charreton , pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com References: <20260430160109.565536-1-a.bied-charreton@proxmox.com> <20260430160109.565536-16-a.bied-charreton@proxmox.com> Content-Language: en-US From: Fiona Ebner In-Reply-To: <20260430160109.565536-16-a.bied-charreton@proxmox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Bm-Milter-Handled: 55990f41-d878-4baa-be0a-ee34c49e34d2 X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp: 1778506690089 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.009 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 Message-ID-Hash: APDLARMLDHUGTV36J6JZ4MB4KCYYGBEL X-Message-ID-Hash: APDLARMLDHUGTV36J6JZ4MB4KCYYGBEL X-MailFrom: f.ebner@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: Am 30.04.26 um 6:00 PM schrieb Arthur Bied-Charreton: > The cpu-flags endpoints may return some CPU flags that are not supported > on any node in the cluster. Filter those out by default in the UI, > giving the option to display them via a checkbox. > > Unknown flags are still shown at the top of the list. > > Signed-off-by: Arthur Bied-Charreton > --- > www/manager6/form/VMCPUFlagSelector.js | 37 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > 1 file changed, 37 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/www/manager6/form/VMCPUFlagSelector.js b/www/manager6/form/VMCPUFlagSelector.js > index 3cc66a3e..ef9555e6 100644 > --- a/www/manager6/form/VMCPUFlagSelector.js > +++ b/www/manager6/form/VMCPUFlagSelector.js > @@ -354,6 +354,43 @@ Ext.define('PVE.form.VMCPUFlagSelector', { > }, > ]; > > + me.dockedItems.push({ > + xtype: 'toolbar', > + dock: 'bottom', > + items: [ > + { > + xtype: 'checkbox', > + checked: true, > + submitValue: false, > + isFormField: false, > + boxLabel: gettext('Only show flags supported by at least one node'), > + listeners: { > + change: function (cb, checked) { > + let store = cb.up('grid').getStore(); > + if (checked) { > + store.addFilter({ > + id: 'supported-filter', > + filterFn: (rec) => { > + let state = rec.get('state'); > + if (state && state !== '=') { > + return true; > + } > + if (rec.get('unknown')) { > + return true; > + } > + let s = rec.get('supported-on'); > + return Array.isArray(s) && s.length > 0; Can we somehow re-use the function from the original filters rather than re-implement it? > + }, > + }); > + } else { > + store.removeFilter('supported-filter'); > + } > + }, > + }, > + }, > + ], > + }); > + > me.callParent(arguments); > > me.initialized = true;