From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [212.224.123.68]) by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 854251FF16F for ; Tue, 30 Sep 2025 10:03:13 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 30EEDE69; Tue, 30 Sep 2025 10:03:20 +0200 (CEST) Mime-Version: 1.0 Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2025 10:03:17 +0200 Message-Id: Cc: "pve-devel" From: =?utf-8?q?Michael_K=C3=B6ppl?= To: "Proxmox VE development discussion" X-Mailer: aerc 0.20.1 References: <20250924160747.430018-1-m.koeppl@proxmox.com> <20250924160747.430018-6-m.koeppl@proxmox.com> In-Reply-To: X-Bm-Milter-Handled: 55990f41-d878-4baa-be0a-ee34c49e34d2 X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp: 1759219376874 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.031 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address BAYES_00 -1.9 Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% DMARC_MISSING 0.1 Missing DMARC policy KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH widget-toolkit v2 1/1] window: add ConfirmRemoveDialog 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: , Reply-To: Proxmox VE development discussion Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: pve-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com Sender: "pve-devel" On Fri Sep 26, 2025 at 4:15 PM CEST, Daniel Kral wrote: > I think it's a good idea to combine these, but at the same time it's a > bit hard to review not seeing the diff from Proxmox.window.SafeDestroy > here directly.. > > I diffed them locally and if it's not too much work, it might be nice to > adapt Proxmox.window.SafeDestroy and set dangerous = true there by > default and only set dangerous = false for the special case in > ConfirmRemoveResource / SafeDestroyResource, but that might also be just > nit-picking from my side. > > What do you think? Thanks for having a look and the feedback! Do you mean that SafeDestroy should extend ConfirmRemoveDialog and set dangerous = true, or should ConfirmRemoveDialog still replace SafeDestroy, but with dangerous = true as the default? I wasn't quite sure regarding what the default should be, but I avoided adding an additional layer (as in: ConfirmRemoveDialog -> SafeDestroy -> {SafeDestroyGuest,SafeDestroyStorage}) because I feld that made it a lot more complicated than it needs to be. > > > _______________________________________________ > pve-devel mailing list > pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com > https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel _______________________________________________ pve-devel mailing list pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel