From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <pve-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com>
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [212.224.123.68])
	by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9297B1FF16F
	for <inbox@lore.proxmox.com>; Thu, 27 Feb 2025 13:37:29 +0100 (CET)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 10698315BC;
	Thu, 27 Feb 2025 13:37:26 +0100 (CET)
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2025 13:37:22 +0100
From: Gabriel Goller <g.goller@proxmox.com>
To: Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com>
Message-ID: <n5hxbvhwz26grvc5fjt4qaeaudbfplhjoeodolmnnwru25rit5@7xypvpdntwtd>
Mail-Followup-To: Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com>, 
 Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
References: <20241210161158.383142-1-g.goller@proxmox.com>
 <20241210161158.383142-5-g.goller@proxmox.com>
 <ad7b7f07-d516-41fe-afb8-b71204b2663b@proxmox.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <ad7b7f07-d516-41fe-afb8-b71204b2663b@proxmox.com>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20241002-35-39f9a6
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results:  0
 AWL -0.029 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
 RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_CERTIFIED_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to
 Validity was blocked. See
 https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for more
 information.
 RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to
 Validity was blocked. See
 https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for more
 information.
 RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_SAFE_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to
 Validity was blocked. See
 https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for more
 information.
 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 widget-toolkit v3 4/4] form: set
 enforceMaxLength on textareafield
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>
Reply-To: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
Cc: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"
Errors-To: pve-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com
Sender: "pve-devel" <pve-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com>

On 26.02.2025 18:59, Thomas Lamprecht wrote:
>Am 10.12.24 um 17:11 schrieb Gabriel Goller:
>> This allows us to set `maxLength` on it. `enforceMaxLength` will force
>> extjs to set the `maxLength` property on the underlying inputfield.
>>
>
>isn't it enough to make the field invalid?
>
>It might not be a big problem in practice here, but personally I find
>it slightly infuriating if there is a hard blocker for going over a text
>length limit, as that makes restructuring the text to a shorter variant
>harder to do, as there it's often useful to be able to (temporarily) write
>a longer text as what it's allowed to submit.

Agreed. We can drop the last patch.



_______________________________________________
pve-devel mailing list
pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com
https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel