From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <t.lamprecht@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 DCEC374F9C
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 23 Jun 2021 11:32:41 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id D0E898D73
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 23 Jun 2021 11:32:41 +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 id 313DB8D5E
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 23 Jun 2021 11:32:40 +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 E9D97437B2
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 23 Jun 2021 11:32:39 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <f5323526-a6ef-09cd-a23f-d4e6f2d7398b@proxmox.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2021 11:32:29 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:90.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/90.0
Content-Language: en-US
To: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>,
Lorenz Stechauner <l.stechauner@proxmox.com>
References: <20210623073714.1156009-1-l.stechauner@proxmox.com>
<20210623073714.1156009-2-l.stechauner@proxmox.com>
From: Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com>
In-Reply-To: <20210623073714.1156009-2-l.stechauner@proxmox.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0
AWL 0.671 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 v2 manager 1/1] ui: dc/UserEdit: add warning
for disabling users
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: Wed, 23 Jun 2021 09:32:41 -0000
On 23.06.21 09:37, Lorenz Stechauner wrote:
> see #3101
>
> Signed-off-by: Lorenz Stechauner <l.stechauner@proxmox.com>
> ---
I should have given this a closer look when commenting on the docs v1 patch, sorry.
In general this would miss for removal and when the expiry date would be set to the
past, but it may make sense to place a API call for running tasks from the user and
only show the warning if there are any.
But, with the docs change applied it's at least clearly documented, so IMO not a very
pressing matter.
> www/manager6/dc/UserEdit.js | 14 ++++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/www/manager6/dc/UserEdit.js b/www/manager6/dc/UserEdit.js
> index b637cd53..65a612fd 100644
> --- a/www/manager6/dc/UserEdit.js
> +++ b/www/manager6/dc/UserEdit.js
> @@ -73,6 +73,12 @@ Ext.define('PVE.dc.UserEdit', {
> uncheckedValue: 0,
> defaultValue: 1,
> checked: true,
> + listeners: {
> + change: function(checkbox) {
the change listener gives you the new value as second parameter, please us that one.
https://docs.sencha.com/extjs/6.0.1/classic/Ext.form.field.Checkbox.html#event-change
> + let taskWarning = me.lookup('taskWarning');
> + taskWarning.setHidden(!(me.wasEnabled && !checkbox.value));
for single use, where we are sure that the variable isn't undefined/null, it's often nicer
to just use chaining, e.g., here:
me.lookup('taskWarning').setHidden(!(me.wasEnabled && !value));
also
> + },
> + },
> },
> ];
>
> @@ -93,6 +99,13 @@ Ext.define('PVE.dc.UserEdit', {
> fieldLabel: gettext('E-Mail'),
> vtype: 'proxmoxMail',
> },
> + {
> + xtype: 'displayfield',
> + reference: 'taskWarning',
> + userCls: 'pmx-hint',
> + value: gettext('Note: Already running tasks of user will not be terminated automatically!'),
> + hidden: true,
> + },
I'd move that to the end of (non-advanced) columnB, looks better there IMO.
> ];
>
> if (me.isCreate) {
> @@ -161,6 +174,7 @@ Ext.define('PVE.dc.UserEdit', {
> success: function(response, options) {
> var data = response.result.data;
> me.setValues(data);
> + me.wasEnabled = data.enable;
> if (data.keys) {
> if (data.keys === 'x!oath' || data.keys === 'x!u2f') {
> me.down('[name="keys"]').setDisabled(1);
>