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 5F88C1FF0DF for ; Thu, 05 Nov 2026 11:36:26 +0100 (CET) Received: from gate001.proxmox.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by gate001.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id EA4742144E; Thu, 05 Nov 2026 11:36:25 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: Date: Thu, 5 Nov 2026 11:36:21 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Beta Subject: Re: [PATCH proxmox-yew-widget-toolkit 4/5] widget: form: implement multi select field To: Nicolas Frey , yew-devel@lists.proxmox.com References: <20261028151517.518742-1-n.frey@proxmox.com> <20261028151517.518742-5-n.frey@proxmox.com> <7ed54cd3-6dcb-4ecb-bbb3-86302ade8df5@proxmox.com> Content-Language: en-US From: Dominik Csapak In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Bm-Milter-Handled: 55990f41-d878-4baa-be0a-ee34c49e34d2 X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp: 1793874981772 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.321 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: EAAIYSPGOKPK7FGX5LZNXH4JTEYULN3C X-Message-ID-Hash: EAAIYSPGOKPK7FGX5LZNXH4JTEYULN3C X-MailFrom: d.csapak@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 11/5/26 11:17 AM, Nicolas Frey wrote: > On Mon Nov 2, 2026 at 3:23 PM CET, Dominik Csapak wrote: >> another thing i forgot to write in my previous message: >> >> Is it intended for the field to grow when many items are selected? >> >> I can imagine that his breaks some ui layout depending on where >> it's located... > > I mention it in the cover letter, so yes it was intended. though the > more I think about it, it would be great to have this configurable. > meaning if it's not expected to break layout, it can grow - otherwise > have it cut off with ellipses at the end? > yep something like that would be good