From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: 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 23DE064E67 for ; Fri, 4 Mar 2022 14:32:59 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 165ED5290 for ; Fri, 4 Mar 2022 14:32:59 +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)) (No client certificate requested) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS id 8AD475286 for ; Fri, 4 Mar 2022 14:32:58 +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 557F846ED0; Fri, 4 Mar 2022 14:32:58 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <8291ca31-29d4-23f6-99a6-d06aca146a34@proxmox.com> Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2022 14:32:57 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:98.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/98.0 Content-Language: en-US To: Aaron Lauterer , Proxmox VE development discussion References: <20211115150209.717122-1-a.lauterer@proxmox.com> <20211115150209.717122-2-a.lauterer@proxmox.com> <01a4001b-4f8e-1678-d460-b1846373085d@proxmox.com> From: Dominik Csapak In-Reply-To: <01a4001b-4f8e-1678-d460-b1846373085d@proxmox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.154 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 v2 manager 1/3] ui: lxc/qemu: add disk reassign 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: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 04 Mar 2022 13:32:59 -0000 On 3/4/22 14:29, Aaron Lauterer wrote: >>> +            }); +        }, +        }); +    }, + + >>> validateForm: function(fp, isValid) { + >>> this.getView().lookup('submitButton').setDisabled(!isValid); + >>> }, + +    onReassignClick: function() { +        let me = this; + >>> let view = me.getView(); +        let form = >>> view.lookup('moveFormPanel').getForm(); +        if >>> (form.isValid()) { + >>> me.reassign_disk(form.getValues()); +        } +    }, + + >>> onMpTypeChange: function(value) { + >>> this.getView().getViewModel().set('mpType', value.getValue()); + >>> this.getView().lookup('mpIdSelector').validate(); +    }, >> >> these functions make me question if it wouldn't have been easier to >> use an 'edit window' instead? any reason for that? > > It has been a while since I sent these patches, but I think there were a few reasons to go with a > regular window. One of them IIRC was that, similar to the resize and move windows, we also want to > show a custom labeled button "Reassign {Volume|Disk}"  instead of "OK" or one of the options we have > with the edit window. > we have the 'submitText' property for the edit window which always takes precedence so that shouldn't be the problem