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 502A2B1A7 for ; Wed, 6 Apr 2022 13:26:47 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 46C2F29E6B for ; Wed, 6 Apr 2022 13:26:17 +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 A3A0B29E5E for ; Wed, 6 Apr 2022 13:26:15 +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 7A39541E5F for ; Wed, 6 Apr 2022 13:26:15 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <9ec05845-0654-c211-8f84-f05ad8e01ab6@proxmox.com> Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2022 13:26:01 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.7.0 Content-Language: en-US To: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com, Matthias Heiserer References: <20220404130211.4138797-1-m.heiserer@proxmox.com> From: Fabian Ebner In-Reply-To: <20220404130211.4138797-1-m.heiserer@proxmox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.425 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 11:26:47 -0000 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. But even if we don't go for that, consider the series Reviewed-by: Fabian Ebner