From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <m.heiserer@proxmox.com>
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 971E5935F9
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon, 20 Feb 2023 11:12:01 +0100 (CET)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 73D12253BF
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon, 20 Feb 2023 11:11:31 +0100 (CET)
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
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon, 20 Feb 2023 11:11:29 +0100 (CET)
Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
by proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 6FDC747CC9
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon, 20 Feb 2023 11:11:29 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <a679943f-afdf-7432-9d6e-f1c859aeec9c@proxmox.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2023 11:11:27 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/102.6.0
From: Matthias Heiserer <m.heiserer@proxmox.com>
To: Dominik Csapak <d.csapak@proxmox.com>,
Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>,
Stefan Sterz <s.sterz@proxmox.com>
Cc: Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com>
References: <20230215144619.1475962-1-s.sterz@proxmox.com>
<74529df9-3161-6918-9a2d-5940e3716e47@proxmox.com>
<30cf2d2b-104c-4546-08e4-d813d255c2a9@proxmox.com>
<e1324fae-9247-4fab-d842-b405702e1887@proxmox.com>
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <e1324fae-9247-4fab-d842-b405702e1887@proxmox.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0
AWL -0.174 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 -0.09 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
Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH widget-toolkit] ui: remove extra parenthesis
from check to avoid eslint error
X-BeenThere: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel.lists.proxmox.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/options/pve-devel>,
<mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.proxmox.com/pipermail/pve-devel/>
List-Post: <mailto:pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
List-Help: <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel>,
<mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2023 10:12:01 -0000
On 15.02.2023 16:37, Dominik Csapak wrote:
> On 2/15/23 16:22, Matthias Heiserer wrote:
>> On 15.02.2023 16:03, Dominik Csapak wrote:
>>> On 2/15/23 15:46, Stefan Sterz wrote:
>>>> with the additional parenthesis eslint throws an error due to the
>>>> "no-extra-parens" rule that avoids unnecessary parenthesis. remove
>>>> them to get rid of the error.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Stefan Sterz <s.sterz@proxmox.com>
>>>> ---
>>>> i am personally not too happy with this eslint requirement here, but
>>>> the widget toolkit won't build otherwise.
>>>>
>>>> src/window/DiskSmart.js | 2 +-
>>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/src/window/DiskSmart.js b/src/window/DiskSmart.js
>>>> index b538ea1..be52a4e 100644
>>>> --- a/src/window/DiskSmart.js
>>>> +++ b/src/window/DiskSmart.js
>>>> @@ -159,7 +159,7 @@ Ext.define('Proxmox.window.DiskSmart', {
>>>> {
>>>> name: 'real-value',
>>>> // FIXME remove with next major release (PBS 3.0)
>>>> - calculate: data => (data.normalized ?? false) ? data.raw :
>>>> data.value,
>>>> + calculate: data => data.normalized ?? false ? data.raw :
>>>> data.value,
>>>> },
>>>> {
>>>> name: 'real-normalized',
>>>
>>>
>>> imho the '?? false' part is unnecessary since that expression will
>>> already be coerced to a
>>> boolean and null and undefined are falsy...
>>>
>>> so i'd be happy with
>>> ----
>>> data.normalized ? data.raw : data.value,
>> Then that's bug in my original patch, as we should only fall back to
>> data.raw when data.normalized doesn't exist (i.e. old api version).
>
> so if i understand correctly, you want
>
> data.normalized === undefined || data.normalized === null ? data.raw :
> data.value
>
> ?
> if normalized is null/undefined return raw, otherwise value?
I reviewed the changes again and it seems I got confused somewhere along
the way.
PBS got the new field 'raw_value', PVE the new field 'normalized'.
So if either of these is missing, it's the old API version.
// all super duper verbose:
// real-value:
// prior to the PBS patch, it would return nothing here. But that's what
// we used to display previously, so might as well keep it
return data.raw
// real-normalized
if (data.normalized === undefined) || (data.raw === undefined) {
return data.value;
} else {
return data.normalized;
}
But maybe can you find another mistake in my reasoning
>
>
>>> ----
>>>
>>> any thoughts @thomas?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> pve-devel mailing list
>>> pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com
>>> https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>