GUI "Save" Button Inconsistency
-
On some pages, the GUI "Save" Button does an apply and on others it does not. Seems to me a "Save" should always save and apply but in any case it should be consistent on every page.
Roy…
-
That's an endless debate that isn't likely to result in anything but a bikeshed discussion. I like mine peridot.
:-)
-
In a perfect world, these functions would be separated for all features, but based on the underlying applications and their specific inner workings this is likely unrealistic.
To relate it to IOS (or similar) it's the difference between editing startup-config and running-config.
IMO, in the world of pfsense it is wise to operate under the assumption that all changes are immediate (ala editing running-config with an implied write on save). If I ever need to edit the configuration for application at a later time or changes that must be made in bulk, I usually end up editing the xml file offline.
For me it typically works better than screwing up your IPsec tunnel and having to drive in to fix it. not that I did that recently :D
-
To relate it to IOS (or similar) it's the difference between editing startup-config and running-config.
Not really, quite the opposite. With IOS it's more like apply on change, save when you write mem.
Generally speaking, actions that require a filter reload need an apply. Actions to daemons take effect immediately. Though there are exceptions to the rule of course.
-
Also, hitting "Save" on some pages causes the "Apply changes" to appear. The whole Save and Apply changes thing seems a bit too confusing to me.
Roy…
-
To relate it to IOS (or similar) it's the difference between editing startup-config and running-config.
Not really, quite the opposite. With IOS it's more like apply on change, save when you write mem.
Generally speaking, actions that require a filter reload need an apply. Actions to daemons take effect immediately. Though there are exceptions to the rule of course.
You are correct 100% for pages that separate the save and apply functions. What I did not clearly state was the fact that I always treat pfsense as though I am editing running config as I cannot always remember which pages have the functions separated
-
What about the addition of "Apply" in the "save"-function? Its only some PHP-code? Why clicking twice if one time is enough? It doesn't make ANY sense to cklick twice. Sorry, but i don't understand why its "an endless debate". The message is clear as water: I change something and want to change that setting. Its more than clear, no questions about. Is it winblows?
-
What about the addition of "Apply" in the "save"-function? Its only some PHP-code? Why clicking twice if one time is enough? It doesn't make ANY sense to cklick twice. Sorry, but i don't understand why its "an endless debate". The message is clear as water: I change something and want to change that setting. Its more than clear, no questions about. Is it winblows?
But you may not always want to apply to every single step. You may want to add all items and save between them and then you are done you will press apply like when you are adding several firewall rules.
// rancor
-
You're right. But, and here is the big problem: In the most cases you have to "Apply changes" FIRST before you can change other things. Thats the big "I'm a winblows-feature" here. And the consense is "not very practical"…
-
I would like to see the "Save" button renamed to "Save and Apply" and only have the "Apply changes" show up when it's possible to apply changes without doing a save.
Roy…
-
And here's the endless debate of personal preferences… It works like it is, I don't see it changing any time soon... and I still want a peridot bikeshed.
-
from a user perspective, it's confusing, inconsistent and appears to be not well thought out. from a coder's point of view, it may well make perfect sense. and yes, it's a minor problem that doesn't effect functionality.
speaking of coders, Thanks for all the hard work and a really great firewall!
Roy…
-
from one specific user perspective, it's confusing, inconsistent and appears to be not well thought out. from a coder's point of view, it may well make perfect sense. and yes, it's a minor problem that doesn't effect functionality.
speaking of coders, Thanks for all the hard work and a really great firewall!
Roy…
Fixed that for you. :-)
-
I would like to see the "Save" button renamed to "Save and Apply" and only have the "Apply changes" show up when it's possible to apply changes without doing a save.
Roy…
Seems right to me:
- "Save and Apply" label for buttons that change thing immediately;
- "Save" label for buttons that only write config, which you can apply later;
- Are there more options?
Seems more descriptive to what the button actually does.
Seems sensible, requires going through all the php files to sort change the labels for some buttons, though. But no recoding of the save and/or apply mechanism itself.
Minor issue imho.
-
I wouldn't want that though, often I want to make a batch of firewall rule changes (perhaps one of which might disrupt traffic flow, but the final result wouldn't) and then apply them all at once.
What makes sense or seems good for one person is probably not going to make someone else happy. You can't please everyone.
-
I wouldn't want that though, often I want to make a batch of firewall rule changes (perhaps one of which might disrupt traffic flow, but the final result wouldn't) and then apply them all at once.
I like to do this too.
I'm suggesting that the functionality of the buttons we have now stay the same, only the label for the "Save" changes to "Save and Apply" to reflect what it actually does.
-
Just adds more work tracking down all the pages where it's actually "save and apply" and not just "save".
…and then I'm sure we'd have people still confused and whinging about it being inconsistent. :-)
-
Just adds more work tracking down all the pages where it's actually "save and apply" and not just "save".
True
…and then I'm sure we'd have people still confused and whinging about it being inconsistent. :-)
Probably ::)
-
if anyone is whinging it's jimp! the rest of us are trying to point out things that might improve the user interface. if you like it the way it is, fine! but you don't have to run down and make fun of the very people who trying to make a great product even better.
Roy…
-
Not really whinging, I just keep pointing out that it's a no-win conversation. Everyone will have differing opinions on this. What one person thinks is great, others won't like. You can't please everyone.
