From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <m.heiserer@proxmox.com>
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))
(No client certificate requested)
by lists.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8D6146A304
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 16 Mar 2022 09:56:21 +0100 (CET)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 7DB9D252C8
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 16 Mar 2022 09:55:51 +0100 (CET)
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 F0C40252BF
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 16 Mar 2022 09:55:50 +0100 (CET)
Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
by proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id C7A0746DBD
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 16 Mar 2022 09:55:50 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <7acca781-8a9c-e26e-74cf-193b805ab349@proxmox.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2022 09:55:49 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.6.2
Content-Language: en-US
To: Dominik Csapak <d.csapak@proxmox.com>,
Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
References: <20220309141815.4118555-1-m.heiserer@proxmox.com>
<20220309141815.4118555-2-m.heiserer@proxmox.com>
<d7d04c35-3f70-cf24-f3af-75f2f2d1833d@proxmox.com>
From: Matthias Heiserer <m.heiserer@proxmox.com>
In-Reply-To: <d7d04c35-3f70-cf24-f3af-75f2f2d1833d@proxmox.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0
AWL 0.002 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 -0.001 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
T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE -0.01 -
Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH widget-toolkit 2/2] ComboGrid: fix sorting
when filtering
X-BeenThere: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel.lists.proxmox.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/options/pve-devel>,
<mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.proxmox.com/pipermail/pve-devel/>
List-Post: <mailto:pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
List-Help: <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel>,
<mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2022 08:56:21 -0000
On 15.03.2022 11:06, Dominik Csapak wrote:
> On 3/9/22 15:18, Matthias Heiserer wrote:
>> When clicking on a column to sort it, the filter doesn't reset.
>> Previously, it forgot the filter until the value was changed.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Matthias Heiserer <m.heiserer@proxmox.com>
>> ---
>> src/form/ComboGrid.js | 7 +++++++
>> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/src/form/ComboGrid.js b/src/form/ComboGrid.js
>> index 33c1d75..55aca3a 100644
>> --- a/src/form/ComboGrid.js
>> +++ b/src/form/ComboGrid.js
>> @@ -12,6 +12,7 @@ Ext.define('Proxmox.form.ComboGrid', {
>> // this value is used as default value after load()
>> preferredValue: undefined,
>> + clearFilterOnBlur: false,
>> // hack: allow to select empty value
>> // seems extjs does not allow that when 'editable == false'
>> @@ -470,4 +471,10 @@ Ext.define('Proxmox.form.ComboGrid', {
>> }
>> });
>> },
>> +
>> + listeners: {
>> + collapse: function() {
>> + this.clearLocalFilter();
>> + },
>> + },
>> });
>
> i think this is wrong, because we now have no way
> to disable that functionality again?
>
> i'd suggest saving the value of clearFilterOnBlur in the initComponent
> to another property
> (e.g. originalClearOnBlur)and then in the collapsehandler only executing
> the
> clear, when the original value was true (or not set, since true is the
> default)
>
>
>
Not sure if I agree completely.
Yes, it should definitely check for some value before clearing.
However, in which situation would it be desirable to have that check on
a different property? If "clearFilterOnBlur" is set, that's imo exactly
what is expected.