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)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7CED09BECB for ; Tue, 30 May 2023 11:33:12 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 5E8952D2F2 for ; Tue, 30 May 2023 11:33:12 +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 ; Tue, 30 May 2023 11:33:11 +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 92E3247AC8 for ; Tue, 30 May 2023 11:33:11 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: Date: Tue, 30 May 2023 11:33:11 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.11.1 To: Thomas Lamprecht , Proxmox VE development discussion References: <20230315130951.3471085-1-a.lauterer@proxmox.com> <23e7f1a0-e69b-ac3d-98d5-73eb0664522c@proxmox.com> Content-Language: en-US From: Aaron Lauterer In-Reply-To: <23e7f1a0-e69b-ac3d-98d5-73eb0664522c@proxmox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL -0.049 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 -0.091 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] [PATCH v4 manager] ui: ceph: improve discoverability of warning details 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: Tue, 30 May 2023 09:33:12 -0000 On 5/28/23 19:32, Thomas Lamprecht wrote: > Am 26/05/2023 um 10:39 schrieb Aaron Lauterer: >> ping? Considering that some users are rather hesitant to upgrade to a major version, it might be a good idea to still get this into Proxmox VE 7 to make it easier for users to discover more details about any issues they experience. > > I think that's probably the best argument can make here, as this is to much > in "new feature" territory for my taste. > But, wouldn't this be possible besser solved in the checker script though? > If one gets as far as seeing warnings in the UI overview but just can't figure > out how to view details on them I'd think that they either ask on a support > channel or could see more details in the checker script which they should run > anyway, avoiding any breakage potential. If you mean the pve7to8 script with the checker script, then yeah, having that in there too is of course a good idea, if it isn't yet. My argument is that with the details for warnings easier to discover, we could reduce the amount of people asking in the forum or opening support tickets. Going from experience with PVE 6, PVE 7 will (unfortunately) still be in use for quite a while after 8 has been released. That is why I would like to still see this change in PVE 7. But as you see fit.