From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: <d.csapak@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) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by lists.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EBA8BBA1C7 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Tue, 19 Mar 2024 08:45:16 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id D12091AE0C for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Tue, 19 Mar 2024 08:44:46 +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) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Tue, 19 Mar 2024 08:44:45 +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 94232479E9; Tue, 19 Mar 2024 08:44:45 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <ce64a586-31c9-4786-b507-3344bcecd00f@proxmox.com> Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2024 08:44:44 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Beta To: Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com>, Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com> References: <20240318134454.2908174-1-d.csapak@proxmox.com> <e62ffbd5-4846-4ec6-85c2-4ba63d990e0b@proxmox.com> Content-Language: en-US From: Dominik Csapak <d.csapak@proxmox.com> In-Reply-To: <e62ffbd5-4846-4ec6-85c2-4ba63d990e0b@proxmox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.019 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 T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE -0.01 - Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [RFC PATCH widget-toolkit] utils: API2Request: defer masking after layout 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: Tue, 19 Mar 2024 07:45:17 -0000 On 3/18/24 16:50, Thomas Lamprecht wrote: > On 18/03/2024 14:44, Dominik Csapak wrote: >> since some time (not sure when exactly), the 'load()' method of the edit >> window did not correctly mask the window anymore >> >> the reason seems to be that the API2Request tries to mask the component >> before it's rendered, and that did never work correctly judging from the >> existing comment. >> >> Instead of simply calling `setLoading`, test if the component is >> rendered, and if not, mask it after it has finished it's layout. >> >> Since we cannot guarantee that the 'afterlayout' event is triggered >> before the api call response handler, add a unique id marker to the >> waitMsgTarget that is delted when the loading is done, and only trigger > > s/delted/deleted/ > > And why do we need setting a unique ID here and not just a flag? > Can a second load be triggered before the first one finished? yes, my thought here (that i forgot to mention) was that when we have multiple API2Requests their start/finish and the 'afterlayout' may overlap so i only wanted to activate the mask when this load was not finished thinking about it a bit more though, i think what would be better here is a ref counting of running api2 requests on that waitMsgTarget and only unmask when the count reaches zero... I'll send a v2 for that > >> the masking if this marker is still there. (thankfully javascript is >> single threaded so this should not end up being a data race) > > Note that async could cause data races also in single-threaded > code, but as we do not use that here and no yield point exist > that doesn't matter here – just mentioning it because the statement > would suggest that one could not have code that is susceptible to > such a race at all in JavaScript, which is not true. true, but those can only happen (as you mentioned) at yield points (await) and since most of our code is non-async i did not mention it here, but yeah one additional sentence about it being non async is probably warranted > >> >> Signed-off-by: Dominik Csapak <d.csapak@proxmox.com> >> --- >> sending as RFC because i'm unsure if we accidentally broke the masking >> somewhere along the way. AFAICS from the current code, this never could have >> worked properly? anyway, i'll be looking into that sometimes soon, and >> this patch should be correct anyway... > > it surely did sometimes in the past, maybe ExtJS 7? yeah maybe, I'll see if i can find out when it still worked and why.. could also be general browser behavior change though