On 02.12.20 14:19, Dominik Csapak wrote:
> On 12/2/20 2:11 PM, Thomas Lamprecht wrote:
>> On 02.12.20 13:56, Dominik Csapak wrote:
>>> instead of relying on the contentTypeField (which does not need to
>>> exists, e.g. for iscsi), explicitely write it into the panel/icon
>>> mapping and check that
On 12/2/20 2:11 PM, Thomas Lamprecht wrote:
On 02.12.20 13:56, Dominik Csapak wrote:
instead of relying on the contentTypeField (which does not need to
exists, e.g. for iscsi), explicitely write it into the panel/icon
mapping and check that
why not return it for iSCIS? >
i don't understand w
On 02.12.20 13:56, Dominik Csapak wrote:
> instead of relying on the contentTypeField (which does not need to
> exists, e.g. for iscsi), explicitely write it into the panel/icon
> mapping and check that
why not return it for iSCIS?
>
> better would be if we query the backend about storage capabi
instead of relying on the contentTypeField (which does not need to
exists, e.g. for iscsi), explicitely write it into the panel/icon
mapping and check that
better would be if we query the backend about storage capabilities,
but such an api call does not exist yet, so this should be ok for now
Sig
