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 7C4098652
for ; Thu, 31 Aug 2023 10:08:17 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 662446ABC
for ; Thu, 31 Aug 2023 10:08:17 +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) server-digest SHA256)
(No client certificate requested)
by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS
for ; Thu, 31 Aug 2023 10:08:16 +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 D0835478CF
for ; Thu, 31 Aug 2023 10:08:15 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID:
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2023 10:08:15 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
To: Dominik Csapak ,
Wolfgang Bumiller
Cc: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com
References: <20230810100902.714456-1-p.hufnagl@proxmox.com>
<119c8829-8f7a-4269-9436-b39e9242dece@proxmox.com>
<027d79fb-8fe6-415f-b1df-a7014bbde1b8@proxmox.com>
From: Philipp Hufnagl
In-Reply-To: <027d79fb-8fe6-415f-b1df-a7014bbde1b8@proxmox.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0
AWL -0.004 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
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] applied: [PATCH manager v4 0/2] fix #474: allow
transfer from container/vms
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, 31 Aug 2023 08:08:17 -0000
On 8/30/23 16:29, Dominik Csapak wrote:
> On 8/30/23 14:43, Philipp Hufnagl wrote:
>> On 8/14/23 12:42, Dominik Csapak wrote:
>>
>>> On 8/14/23 12:36, Wolfgang Bumiller wrote:
>>>> applied, thanks
>>>>
>>>> @Dominik: does extjs have an 'enableFn' for rows in a grid?
>>>> IMO we should either disable the ones with pools when the transfer
>>>> checkbox is not checked, or hide them (but when hiding them after
>>>> already checking them... it's weird)
>>>> Or disable the 'Add' button if a VM with a pool is checked?
>>>>
>>>
>>> 'enableFn' is our invention ;) and no that only works for some of
>>> our components
>>>
>>>
>>> looking just now at the gui patch, i would have approached it a bit
>>> differently:
>>>
>>> always enable the 'transfer' property but show a 'warning' box when
>>> one is selected
>>> with an old pool
>>>
>>> since 'Allow Transfer' is rather non-descriptive (and no
>>> documentation is included)
>>> and it adds needless friction on change
>>> (i select a vm, click, get an error, have to select the vm again,
>>> click transfer, click button..)
>>>
>>> also there is some whitespace error (missing space between && and
>>> 'item.data.poll')
>>> don't know why eslint did not pick that up...
>>
>>
>> I considered the option of a warning box. I decided against it
>> because I thought it too verbose throwing a warning box every time
>> the user wants to transfer/migrate.
>>
>
> IMHO that contradicts itself, since now the user has to press a
> checkbox more than just read a warning. So with a warning, the user
> has *less* things to do than with the checkbox.
> (just read, no clicking; users that know the warning will not read it
> anyway)
>
> a warning per line would be even nicer, so that the user sees at once
> which vms are affected.
>
>> As for the UI I agree that it could be improved. Would it solve it if
>> the vms currently part of a pool are only shown AFTER the check box
>> is checked? This way the User could never experience this error.
>>
>>
>
> I don't think that's good because now the user has to either know
> beforehand it's in another pool,
> or search the whole list, wondering where the vm is, just to click the
> checkbox and search again?
>
> In general we try to make the UI as easy to use as possible, without
> having to impose too many
> hurdles (except the action has severe consequences like deleting
> data!) but show appropriate
> warnings when things might be unexpected (like here with the
> transferring of one pool to another,
> since a user might expect that the vm is in both pools afterwards)
>
>
I misunderstood you before. Having a simple notification appear the way
you descriped sounds like a good solution too. I will make a patch
featuring that