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 4F0CAB5D0 for ; Thu, 7 Apr 2022 08:57:17 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 42B401C69 for ; Thu, 7 Apr 2022 08:57:17 +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)) (No client certificate requested) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS id CB3011C5E for ; Thu, 7 Apr 2022 08:57:16 +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 9C8EC459DA for ; Thu, 7 Apr 2022 08:57:16 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2022 08:57:09 +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: Fabian Ebner , Proxmox VE development discussion , Matthias Heiserer References: <20220404130211.4138797-1-m.heiserer@proxmox.com> <9ec05845-0654-c211-8f84-f05ad8e01ab6@proxmox.com> <9dedc1bb-29c2-3817-4d40-ac68591c04b1@proxmox.com> From: Thomas Lamprecht In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 1.490 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 -2.873 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: Thu, 07 Apr 2022 06:57:17 -0000 On 07.04.22 08:31, Fabian Ebner wrote: >>> 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. > I might've made it sound worse than it is, by not being specific. By > default, the type *is* filtered. It's just that the checkbox now is > "filter VMID+type" vs. previously, "filter VMID" with type filtering > always active. As turning off that checkbox is a relatively uncommon use > case to begin with, I didn't consider it a must. I still do consider it a must. The checkbox is always shown and easily accessible, I see no reason to label using it as edge-case and showing backup files that cannot work can only confuse users and just isn't hard to fix.