From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [IPv6:2a01:7e0:0:424::9]) by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9EF251FF137 for ; Tue, 14 Apr 2026 09:31:52 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 7E9CDF595; Tue, 14 Apr 2026 09:32:40 +0200 (CEST) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2026 09:32:35 +0200 Message-Id: Subject: Re: [PATCH manager 05/18] ui: form/CRSOptions: allow auto rebalancing only for static and dynamic mode From: =?utf-8?q?Michael_K=C3=B6ppl?= To: "Daniel Kral" , =?utf-8?q?Michael_K=C3=B6ppl?= , X-Mailer: aerc 0.21.0 References: <20260409114224.323102-1-d.kral@proxmox.com> <20260409114224.323102-6-d.kral@proxmox.com> In-Reply-To: X-Bm-Milter-Handled: 55990f41-d878-4baa-be0a-ee34c49e34d2 X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp: 1776151880456 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.099 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 RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_CERTIFIED_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to Validity was blocked. See https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for more information. RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to Validity was blocked. See https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for more information. RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_SAFE_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to Validity was blocked. See https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for more information. SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record Message-ID-Hash: YE7J44Z2QX7NROMEVAP2RH4QN5BNMGHU X-Message-ID-Hash: YE7J44Z2QX7NROMEVAP2RH4QN5BNMGHU X-MailFrom: m.koeppl@proxmox.com X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; loop; banned-address; emergency; member-moderation; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.10 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion List-Help: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: On Tue Apr 14, 2026 at 9:18 AM CEST, Daniel Kral wrote: > On Mon Apr 13, 2026 at 6:01 PM CEST, Michael K=C3=B6ppl wrote: >> On Thu Apr 9, 2026 at 1:41 PM CEST, Daniel Kral wrote: >> >> [snip] >> >>> @@ -42,14 +46,15 @@ Ext.define('PVE.form.CRSOptions', { >>> name: 'ha', >>> fieldLabel: gettext('Scheduling Mode'), >>> deleteEmpty: false, >>> - value: '__default__', >>> comboItems: [ >>> ['__default__', Proxmox.Utils.defaultText + ' = (basic)'], >>> ['basic', gettext('Basic (Resource Count)')], >>> ['static', gettext('Static Load')], >>> ['dynamic', gettext('Dynamic Load')], >>> ], >>> - defaultValue: '__default__', >>> + bind: { >>> + value: '{crsMode}', >>> + }, >>> }, >>> { >>> xtype: 'proxmoxcheckbox', >>> @@ -67,6 +72,7 @@ Ext.define('PVE.form.CRSOptions', { >>> boxLabel: gettext('Automatically rebalance HA reso= urces'), >>> bind: { >>> value: '{autoRebalancing}', >>> + disabled: '{!canUseAutoRebalancing}', >> >> not a big deal, but wanted to mention it nonetheless: if a user selects >> e.g. static mode and enables auto rebalancing and then later switches to >> basic mode, the checkbox remains checked visually, but the value is >> still set to false once submitted. It's just a cosmetic issue, but >> something I noticed during my testing. > > Thanks for the feedback! > > I thought about this too, but it also felt a little bit odd if a user > flicks through the scheduling modes and the auto rebalancing fields get > wiped every time the user goes to the default/basic scheduling mode... > > Maybe a compromise is to completely hide those options alltogether, so > that the value isn't seen at all? Though that would hide the > functionality and it isn't the most obvious that one needs to select > 'static' or 'dynamic' to get the auto rebalancing options. I personally don't like the idea of hiding options. I think I'd still prefer clearing the checkbox if the user selects default/basic, but I see your point that it's a bit weird UX-wise. I'd note, though, that we do this in other cases in the UI as well (see PCIEdit.js, OSTypeEdit.js, ...), so it's not too unexpected, I think. It it very subjective, though. Maybe someone else has a stronger opinion in this regard. > >> >>> }, >>> }, >>> {