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) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by lists.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8961AEE5A for ; Tue, 13 Dec 2022 13:13:01 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 6E8331ED7D for ; Tue, 13 Dec 2022 13:13:01 +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 ; Tue, 13 Dec 2022 13:12:59 +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 52E9244FA8 for ; Tue, 13 Dec 2022 13:12:59 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2022 13:12:58 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:108.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/108.0 Content-Language: en-GB To: Proxmox VE development discussion , Dominik Csapak , Stefan Hrdlicka References: <20220930123802.772865-1-s.hrdlicka@proxmox.com> <5ff01d81-cb4b-fea1-8810-60eb8522f585@proxmox.com> From: Thomas Lamprecht In-Reply-To: <5ff01d81-cb4b-fea1-8810-60eb8522f585@proxmox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL -0.028 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 -0.001 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 V6 pve-manager 0/2] fix #2822: add iscsi, lvm, lvmthin & zfs 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: Tue, 13 Dec 2022 12:13:01 -0000 Am 21/10/2022 um 11:24 schrieb Dominik Csapak: > All in all LGTM, one small UX thing that i am not sure if we can improve without > making it way more complicated: > > We now preselect the current node and leave the restriction out. > We then restrict when the node changes, but remove the restriction > again when we select the current node. IIUC, you mean that the node selector implies that it's restricted to the node that one has loaded the web-interface with, even if that's then not the case. As if that's the case then yes, that'd seem like confusing UX. > > Maybe we want to just leave the restriction out when we load > the panel up, but always restrict when a user sets the node? > (as in, if i manually select the current node again, restrict > it?) And here you propose that we keep the empty value, and thus the "All (No restrictions)" displayed on edit window creation, and if any node is actually selected by the user then we always restrict it to that (just to ensure IIUC)? If IIUC, then yes, while mabye not the best (as its an odd "problem") it might be the better way. > > not sure if we'd want that or leave it like it is (or something else entirely?) > @Thomas do you have any thoughts about that?