From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from gate001.proxmox.com (gate001.proxmox.com [IPv6:2a0f:8001:1:32::40]) by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A87351FF09B for ; Mon, 31 Aug 2026 10:42:37 +0200 (CEST) Received: from gate001.proxmox.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by gate001.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id EFC682132D; Mon, 31 Aug 2026 10:42:36 +0200 (CEST) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2026 10:42:32 +0200 Message-Id: Subject: Re: [PATCH manager v2] fix #7896: ui: qemu: show effective machine version for Windows guests From: "Jakob Klocker" To: "Dominik Csapak" , X-Mailer: aerc 0.20.0 References: <20260824130155.249596-1-j.klocker@proxmox.com> <382da81b-b48b-4047-9fb0-a9d355573902@proxmox.com> In-Reply-To: X-Bm-Milter-Handled: 55990f41-d878-4baa-be0a-ee34c49e34d2 X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp: 1788165739903 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 1.714 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address DMARC_MISSING 0.1 Missing DMARC policy KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment (newer systems) RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED -2.3 Sender listed at https://www.dnswl.org/, medium trust 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: YQJT5CBMQMUZCUFQKWMPUJUJF76YCL2V X-Message-ID-Hash: YQJT5CBMQMUZCUFQKWMPUJUJF76YCL2V X-MailFrom: j.klocker@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 Mon Aug 31, 2026 at 10:03 AM CEST, Dominik Csapak wrote: > ok i misunderstood what you meant from the comment, i get it now and > could reproduce the misbehavior with the lines deleted. > (i simply looked for a different thing) > > there is a much easier method instead of manipulating the value itself=20 > and notifying the viewmodel: > > since both the effectiveVersion field and the hint are only modified > once, we don't need to use the viewmodel here at all? > > just have the field value set via the normal 'value' object > but set 'submitValue: false' so it does not get submitted on > clicking ok. (the setValue parent handler then calls resetOriginal value= =20 > anyway) > > same for the hint, we can show/hide it in the setValue method, but > don't have to use the viewmodel for it. > > In general the viewmodel is only really helpful if we change their > values dynamically while the user has the editor open > which isn't the case for the 'setValue' method (this is only > called once on opening) Thanks for the detailed explanation, makes a lot more sense implementing it that way! As you mentioned, viewmodel isn't necessary here -- not sure why I opted for it. I'll send a revision using the 'value' approach.