From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from gate001.proxmox.com (gate001.proxmox.com [45.144.208.40]) by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D27ED1FF0DF for ; Thu, 05 Nov 2026 11:17:06 +0100 (CET) Received: from gate001.proxmox.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by gate001.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 9FD24213DD; Thu, 05 Nov 2026 11:17:06 +0100 (CET) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Date: Thu, 05 Nov 2026 11:17:02 +0100 Message-Id: From: "Nicolas Frey" To: "Dominik Csapak" , Subject: Re: [PATCH proxmox-yew-widget-toolkit 2/5] widget: data table: only extend explicit select all to new rows X-Mailer: aerc 0.20.0 References: <20261028151517.518742-1-n.frey@proxmox.com> <20261028151517.518742-3-n.frey@proxmox.com> In-Reply-To: X-Bm-Milter-Handled: 55990f41-d878-4baa-be0a-ee34c49e34d2 X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp: 1793873822342 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 1.211 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address DMARC_MISSING 0.1 Missing DMARC policy KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment (newer systems) RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED -2.3 Sender listed at https://www.dnswl.org/, medium trust SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record Message-ID-Hash: 7VFCWKLIADYHCVCRJGBN6P2VQVNY2Q2M X-Message-ID-Hash: 7VFCWKLIADYHCVCRJGBN6P2VQVNY2Q2M X-MailFrom: n.frey@proxmox.com X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; loop; banned-address; emergency; member-moderation; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.10 Precedence: list List-Id: Yew framework devel list at Proxmox List-Help: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: On Mon Nov 2, 2026 at 3:12 PM CET, Dominik Csapak wrote: > even that i find too much. > > A pattern I for example use often in UIs (even in our Extjs ones): > > * filter by some pattern > * press 'select all' ( all visible are selected ) > * unfilter > * select some others too > > this would not work with this. > > Maybe we need to have some different modes for select all? > * Automatic (status-quo, as default?) > * All (your patch) > * Visible (my use case from above) > yeah I didn't think of the above as an intended use-case, but def. makes sense now. i think that would work ^^ thanks for the input! [snip]