From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: <f.ebner@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) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by lists.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CA4DA620AA for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon, 21 Feb 2022 09:33:35 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id B42D85BB1 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon, 21 Feb 2022 09:33:05 +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 93CFA5BA3 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon, 21 Feb 2022 09:33:04 +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 6181A41C52 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon, 21 Feb 2022 09:32:58 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <7c867147-33b0-427c-4c6f-09fa84562d7f@proxmox.com> Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2022 09:32:53 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.5.0 Content-Language: en-US To: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com, m.heiserer@proxmox.com References: <20220218104230.311652-1-m.heiserer@proxmox.com> From: Fabian Ebner <f.ebner@proxmox.com> Cc: Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com> In-Reply-To: <20220218104230.311652-1-m.heiserer@proxmox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.133 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 manager] storage GUI: fix unintuitive sorting order 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: Mon, 21 Feb 2022 08:33:35 -0000 Am 18.02.22 um 11:42 schrieb Matthias Heiserer: > The backups in the 'Backups' table in Storages are now initially > sorted by column 'Name' ascending. > > Previously, they were first sorted by 'vmid' descending, then by date > descending. This was unintuitive as 'vmid' doesn't exist as column > in the GUI, and only 'Date' displayed a sorting arrow. > > Signed-off-by: Matthias Heiserer <m.heiserer@proxmox.com> > --- > www/manager6/storage/BackupView.js | 6 +----- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 5 deletions(-) > Please note that the order was recently intentionally changed to be like that, see commit 58f4e6ac387561a16ec370812083d60a12dc4cfe That said, you do have a point. One way to improve the situation might be to add a vmid column, but we could also think about using a tree view for backups instead. @Thomas: Would the latter be okay for you? Not related to your change, but some more context: PVE.storage.BackupView is currently derived from PVE.storage.ContentView, but actually, it caused a lot of special handling to be added to that base class. If PVE.storage.BackupView were it's own thing (which is essentially implied if we go with the tree view approach), PVE.storage.ContentView should also get simpler again. There also is PVE.grid.BackupView which is used for backups of a single guest and IMHO it should be merged with the other one, with a few config options to account for the small differences in behavior.