From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [212.224.123.68]) by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B0E861FF133 for ; Mon, 11 May 2026 15:36:58 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 5F7FF175C6; Mon, 11 May 2026 15:36:56 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: Date: Mon, 11 May 2026 15:36:47 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [PATCH pve-manager v4 14/17] ui: cpu flags selector: fix buffered rendering error To: Arthur Bied-Charreton , pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com References: <20260430160109.565536-1-a.bied-charreton@proxmox.com> <20260430160109.565536-15-a.bied-charreton@proxmox.com> Content-Language: en-US From: Fiona Ebner In-Reply-To: <20260430160109.565536-15-a.bied-charreton@proxmox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Bm-Milter-Handled: 55990f41-d878-4baa-be0a-ee34c49e34d2 X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp: 1778506496068 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL -0.141 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 POISEN_SPAM_PILL 0.1 Meta: its spam POISEN_SPAM_PILL_1 0.1 random spam to be learned in bayes POISEN_SPAM_PILL_3 0.1 random spam to be learned in bayes 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: TQTVFSS23SOOR2JAXL5FO7AW5WMCNBZG X-Message-ID-Hash: TQTVFSS23SOOR2JAXL5FO7AW5WMCNBZG X-MailFrom: f.ebner@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: Am 30.04.26 um 6:01 PM schrieb Arthur Bied-Charreton: > When the flags are queried from /cluster/qemu/cpu-flags, Ext.js uses > buffered rendering, and we have to use a different helper to refresh the > view [0][1]. > > Not doing so creates random-looking rendering errors, in this case the > radio group was missing from random flags, changing every time the > buffer would be re-rendered. > > [0] https://docs.sencha.com/extjs/6.2.0/classic/Ext.view.AbstractView.html#method-refresh > [1] https://docs.sencha.com/extjs/6.2.0/classic/Ext.grid.plugin.BufferedRenderer.html#method-refreshView Nit: we have 7.0.0, so you could link to that. > > Signed-off-by: Arthur Bied-Charreton > --- > www/manager6/form/VMCPUFlagSelector.js | 15 ++++++++++++++- > 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/www/manager6/form/VMCPUFlagSelector.js b/www/manager6/form/VMCPUFlagSelector.js > index 13a43210..3cc66a3e 100644 > --- a/www/manager6/form/VMCPUFlagSelector.js > +++ b/www/manager6/form/VMCPUFlagSelector.js > @@ -155,7 +155,20 @@ Ext.define('PVE.form.VMCPUFlagSelector', { > store.insert(0, newUnknownFlags); > } > > - me.getView().refresh(); > + // Ext.js uses buffered renderers for larger lists, i.e. in this case, the flags > + // queried from /cluster/qemu/cpu-flags, which returns all possible QEMU flags. In > + // this case, we cannot use AbstractView.refresh [0] and have to fall back to > + // BufferedRenderer.refreshView [1], otherwise we get interesting rendering errors, in > + // this case radio groups missing from random flags. It does not explain why the issue happens. > + // > + // [0] https://docs.sencha.com/extjs/6.2.0/classic/Ext.view.AbstractView.html#method-refresh > + // [1] https://docs.sencha.com/extjs/6.2.0/classic/Ext.grid.plugin.BufferedRenderer.html#method-refreshView > + let plugin = me.findPlugin('bufferedrenderer'); The BufferedRenderer docs say: NOTE: This is a private utility class for internal use by the framework. Don't rely on its existence. Is there an alternative way without relying on internals? Maybe store.fireEvent('refresh'); instead of what we do currently? And this can be done in the previous patch already I guess. > + if (plugin === undefined) { > + me.getView().refresh(); > + } else { > + plugin.refreshView(); > + } > }, > isDirty: function () { > let me = this;