From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <l.wagner@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 03CB39A6B9
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Tue, 9 May 2023 10:29:32 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 8B33F1C1C0
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Tue, 9 May 2023 10:29:31 +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))
(No client certificate requested)
by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Tue, 9 May 2023 10:29:29 +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 9A9BA47C7B
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Tue, 9 May 2023 10:29:29 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <e6b13f5c-91ea-e1e7-375b-4ab64f7e1d2a@proxmox.com>
Date: Tue, 9 May 2023 10:29:29 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/102.10.0
Content-Language: en-US
To: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>,
Aaron Lauterer <a.lauterer@proxmox.com>
References: <20230509075611.884153-1-a.lauterer@proxmox.com>
From: Lukas Wagner <l.wagner@proxmox.com>
In-Reply-To: <20230509075611.884153-1-a.lauterer@proxmox.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0
AWL 0.727 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
NICE_REPLY_A -1.802 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
T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE -0.01 -
Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [RFC manager] ui: DirEdit: add hint when to enable
shared
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, 09 May 2023 08:29:32 -0000
Hi!
On 5/9/23 09:56, Aaron Lauterer wrote:
> To hopefully reduce confusion what the 'shared' checkbox does.
>
> Signed-off-by: Aaron Lauterer <a.lauterer@proxmox.com>
> ---
>
> I saw it one time too many where users were a bit confused as to what
> this checkbox is for. Since we have a hard time to find a better label,
> maybe we want to put a small hint below it?
>
> The phrasing can probably be improved upon. But I think having something
> there that can hopefully explain it enough, transporting that the
> sharing itself needs to be configured beforehand by the user, would help.
>
> www/manager6/storage/DirEdit.js | 4 ++++
> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/www/manager6/storage/DirEdit.js b/www/manager6/storage/DirEdit.js
> index 7e9ec44d..8c6f868a 100644
> --- a/www/manager6/storage/DirEdit.js
> +++ b/www/manager6/storage/DirEdit.js
> @@ -31,6 +31,10 @@ Ext.define('PVE.storage.DirInputPanel', {
> uncheckedValue: 0,
> fieldLabel: gettext('Shared'),
> },
> + {
> + xtype: 'displayfield',
> + value: gettext('Enable if the path is a location that is shared between the nodes in the cluster.'),
> + },
> ];
>
> me.callParent();
The wording is fine, but I think a tooltip instead of a displayfield would be better.
Also, don't forget that the 'shared' flag also exists for LVM storage.
As a side note, the documentation does not really explain the flag at all. I think
one short paragraph on the effects of this flag and when/how to use it would not hurt.
Cheers,
--
- Lukas