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)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E0E9CB485 for ; Wed, 6 Apr 2022 17:40:16 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id D2BFC2CCB1 for ; Wed, 6 Apr 2022 17:40:16 +0200 (CEST) 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 D96982CCA6 for ; Wed, 6 Apr 2022 17:40:15 +0200 (CEST) Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id AA2C541F1D for ; Wed, 6 Apr 2022 17:40:15 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <9dedc1bb-29c2-3817-4d40-ac68591c04b1@proxmox.com> Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2022 17:40:00 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:99.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/99.0 Content-Language: en-US To: Proxmox VE development discussion , Fabian Ebner , Matthias Heiserer References: <20220404130211.4138797-1-m.heiserer@proxmox.com> <9ec05845-0654-c211-8f84-f05ad8e01ab6@proxmox.com> From: Thomas Lamprecht In-Reply-To: <9ec05845-0654-c211-8f84-f05ad8e01ab6@proxmox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.369 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 -0.631 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 v4 manager 0/4] BackupView as TreePanel 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: Wed, 06 Apr 2022 15:40:16 -0000 On 06.04.22 13:26, Fabian Ebner wrote: > Am 04.04.22 um 15:02 schrieb Matthias Heiserer: >> Depends on https://lists.proxmox.com/pipermail/pve-devel/2022-March/052322.html >> >> Matthias Heiserer (4): >> ui: Utils: Helpers for backup type and icon >> ui: storage: Rewrite backup content view as TreePanel. >> ui: delete BackupView and replace it with the new Tree BackupView >> ui: content view: remove dead code >> >> www/manager6/Makefile | 1 - >> www/manager6/Utils.js | 20 + >> www/manager6/grid/BackupView.js | 388 ------------- >> www/manager6/lxc/Config.js | 2 +- >> www/manager6/qemu/Config.js | 2 +- >> www/manager6/storage/BackupView.js | 817 +++++++++++++++++++++------- >> www/manager6/storage/ContentView.js | 43 +- >> 7 files changed, 657 insertions(+), 616 deletions(-) >> delete mode 100644 www/manager6/grid/BackupView.js >> > > Great! I've just got one complaint left (and a few nits, see my answer > to 2/4). Repeating the complaint here: > > I feel like we should always filter by backup type in the guest view > like is done currently. Otherwise, there is the possibility to try and > restore e.g. an LXC backup over an existing VM. That probably isn't a > common use case, and it just leads to an error. > Yeah that's a must do IMO.