Re: [pve-devel] applied-series: [PATCH docs/widget-toolkit/manager v3] implement tagview

From: Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com>
To: Dominik Csapak <d.csapak@proxmox.com>,
	Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
Subject: Re: [pve-devel] applied-series: [PATCH docs/widget-toolkit/manager v3] implement tagview
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2024 15:26:11 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <743f7b19-59bf-4d9f-a26e-fc7f4d06fcf3@proxmox.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <62216d1a-de04-43da-b53e-b1862cd964e4@proxmox.com>

Am 11.11.24 um 14:58 schrieb Dominik Csapak:
> On 11/10/24 12:22, Thomas Lamprecht wrote:
>> What would be nice to have is to optionally show also nodes and storage entries
>> for the tag and pool views, so that these views can be used as only one to fully
>> manage all resources. This probably should even become an opt-out setting.
> 
> that should be (relatively) easy, so I'll whip something up. any preferred
> order on the types on the same level (i.e. do you want the nodes/storages
> below the untagged/unpooled guests, or above?)

I'd go for below, to not get in-between guests.

>>
>> semi-related, allowing one to group (shared) storages with the same name might
>> also be great to make the resource tree clearer and quicker to find things if
>> one has more than a few nodes/storages. I.e., I'd join the list of nodes in the
>> tree where the current node name is and add a node selector filtered to the
>> available nodes in the storage view to allow selecting another node, that way
>> we might even group storages that are distinct on every node, or leave that up
>> to select, i.e.:
>>
>> Group Storages: [ Default (No) ]
>>                  | No           |
>>                  | Shared Only  |
>>                  | All          |
> 
> ok, i think i understand what you want here, but not sure how much work that is.
> Currently we only have one 'grouping' per view so to introduce 'grouping per type'
> is probably not that easy...
> 
> I'll see how it could work regardless

I think that especially grouping local ones could have some odd edge cases, like
for the available-storage capacity bar, so it might be fine to skip the "group
all" case for the beginning and have only the "group none" and "group shared"
ones.

> 
> do i understand correctly that this would not exist in the server view,
> only in tag/pool/folder ?

yes, in the server view I would not make sense, as one can only have one
storage with the same Id per node anyway.

> (where multiple storages with the same name appear on the same level)
> 

exactly, so tag, pool and also folder view.

_______________________________________________
pve-devel mailing list
pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com
https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel