Messages

After all that's supposed to run on your Windows domain controllers in your enterprise with a couple of thousand seats.

What is Windows?

Seriously, though - if a device needs a name to be accessed, i.e. provides a service of any kind, it gets a fixed IP address in my home network. Case closed or is it?

Yes, I do this as well. All my VMs/LXCs and physical machines who provide a service use either a static IP address (rarely) or a static DHCP mapping (frequently).

Why would I want "Paddy's Macbook Pro" or "Gabi's iPad" anywhere in my DNS records? I fail to see the use case.

Especially in test environments or prod envs with ephemeral VMs/LXCs that need to talk to each other a dynamic mapping is very helpful. Of course one can create scripts to manage static mappings or assign static IPs, but it's a matter of convenience. In most cases I don't care about Paddy's MacBook or Gabi's iPad. Unless I want to transfer data and there is no mDNS available. But I agree... this is not very likely.

My main point was rather that I have a perfectly working env right now. As soon as I migrate to 26.7, my setup will break and I will have to migrate to DNSmasq - whether I want or not. Don't get me wrong, it was clear to me that I would have to migrate at one point in the future. But I hoped it would not be so soon. And I am just disappointed that something that has worked perfectly will stop working.

In the business edition we will soon have a PowerDNS based plugin.

Will this be available for the community edition?

PowerDNS is awesome. I worked for one of the biggest domain resellers and administered a few PowerDNS clusters... However, this seems a bit of an overkill for my home network. Haha.

I think a lot of people would be less confused if they would just keep an eye on the Release Notes carefully each time there is an update/upgrade

I always do that and I've also read the Migration Assistant notes, but I do not recall any mentioning of references showing up on the new rules page. It's possible that I missed it though...

The ISC plugin is legacy since a while now and EOL.

I am sorry. KEA is unusable without registering dynamic leases. Period. There is no other way to say this. If you need that functionality (which is why most people who need it either still use ISC (like myself) or migrate to DNSmasq, KEA is utterly useless. And it will stay that useless, unless there is a workaround (as you mentioned via a community plugin or the powerdns plugin). However without proper documentation (how to transition your perfect ISC setup to KEA + plugin + whatever (w/o losing any features/functionality)) this is also just a theory.

It was mentioned back then that ISC will still work, which I guess should have read "it will still work, until it doesn't, and then you are screwed".

Please forgive my disappointment, but it is still hard to grasp how a project can replace one of the most important subsystems of a router (OPNsense's main purpose is still a firewall/router, is it not?) with something that is useless out of the box.
Having access to your devices via DNS in your home network is one of the most important things. Sorry, but some people use DHCP instead of fixed IP addresses.

But maybe the scorching heat is just ravaging and melting my brain. Right now I can't tell. (In which case I apologize in advance.)

[for the future]

I guess destiny is to confuse someone xD

I hear you. Haha.

A clearer UI hint or changelog entry could have helped, but changing it now is too late since the knowledge about what happens and what the link button does is getting clearly communicated in the community since a while.

To be fair we hid the old rules before and only revealed them when pressing "Inspect", but a lot of users were confused about "where are all of my automatic and legacy rules" so we flipped the default.

I agree with you, which is why I mentioned "for the future". The situation has been clear after the first reply, so I am all good.
But references are not uncommon in UIs and I also recall that there were references on certain pages in OPNsense.
All I am saying is that using a different color for references is a good idea, whether it might happen or not. The situation I described in this topic was only one example of a reference. Establishing some sort of differentiation for references (color coding or whatever) could be an improvement. Not in this instant, but when the devs plan new features/UI changes/ideas in the future.

Sure, and then the next user is like "Why are my rules orange I don't understand whats going on".

We did the most we could with the links. I would have hoped users try to click them if they don't find the edit button.

I did not even look at the available buttons until @ShengFui mentioned them. I only saw the same rules in 2 different pages.

In that case the UI could have explained this - only if references are actually available and shown. Even an entry in the Changelog that the new rules page also shows references could have helped.

I also understand that stuff like this is not easy and I probably could have looked at the icons. I only saw the rules and was therefore rightfully confused.

P.S.: Also, if the project makes it clear that references are differently color coded, a whole new world opens up. ;-) To be fair, references are usually shown differently and clearly marked. That is if you look at Unix/Linux after 1999 (symlinks as an example). But UIs also often make the distinction between original and references/aliases/links.

i think this is normal, they are shown but you cannot edit them.

in the commands-column you can only lookup the rule reference, after migration, you can edit them.

Ahhhh, thanks! This makes sense.

Just an idea for the devs for the future: a reference could have a different color. The text (columns in the row of the rule) is shown as black, but a reference could be shown as blue or orange.

I am running OPNsense 26.1.11_10-amd64 and even though I have never touched the Migration Assistant (nor created any new rules manually), all my rules are shown on the Firewall: Rules [new] page.

I am slightly confused right now. According to all the posts regarding the migration to the new rules setup, one has to actually migrate the old rules by exporting the legacy rules and importing them into the new GUI (Rules [new]).
I have never done that, yet they are shown.

I also just tested to change the description of one of my legacy rules.... and guess what, the new description shows up under "Rules [new]".

So, what is going on?

Why do they show up under "Rules [new]", even though I never migrated them?
How do I know whether my rules are really migrated (and not just an echo from my legacy rules)?

I'll be euqally blunt. Who are you talking to? You asked a question. I answered. I would have expected a proper reply, not some annoyed comment that has nothing to do with what I brought up.

Get your attitude in order. This is no way to deal with people. At least not when they are as friendly as I am.

Fix your release notes, unless you want to come across as a liar. Or was this on purpose? Telling people that the issue was A, then tell people that A was fixed and react like someone killed your dog, because people tell you that it didn't fix A.

A screenshot would help explain if the issue you're seeing is relevant to the changes or not.

It's the same as in the other topic about fixed rule window size. In that topic it was explained that the reason for this was an issue with tabulator that had a bug about the height calculation or dynamic resizing.
Since the release notes mentioned exactly that I hoped this would fix the issue.

It seems that even though Tabulator was updated and the grid height is auto calculated in the 26.1.6 update, the problem still persists (without
Stylus or Tampermonkey).

Excerpt from the release notes:

ui: upgrade Tabulator to version 6.4.0
ui: automatic grid height calculation

I have fixed this for me with a Tampermonkey script.

Thank you for this. I've converted it to a Stylus User Style (I am using Stylus instead of Tampermonkey) and it works splendidly.

2000px is a good value for 50 entries. For 100 entries you have to increase the value accordingly. Since this is a max value anyway and does not change the size, if no entries are displayed, using a very large value should not matter either. e.g. setting it to 50000px. In that case one can be sure that 1000 entries can be shown as well (w/o scrolling within the tabulator). (1000 is the last selection before All.)

It looks like this topic applies to other parts of the webGUI too and at least one person found a nice workaround for it : https://forum.opnsense.org/index.php?msg=262103

Basically edit the CSS so the height is at least 2000 pixels :)

Awesome, thank you for this. I converted that Tampermonkey script into a Stylus User Style and it works nicely.

I have linked the code where there is a comment about the new library used (tabulator) having some challenges with this resizing.

Thank you. I had an appointment this afternoon and I wasn't able to read up on it. I only saw the referenced issue in the comment, but need more time to look into it, which I will do this evening.

So, why didn't someone answer with: it was a workaround for a bug or limitation. Please open a github issue for further discussions. On one side I can certainly understand this, but there might be fixes or better libraries in the future. (As I mentioned before, I have to read up on it and maybe open an issue with the tabulator project.)
I like github, so I don't have a problem with it. But questions are usually closed in gh trackers referencing a forum or some other channel.

Which is why I asked my question in this forum (as a starting point). I certainly have no problem to move it over to gh. But in that case, please state in which repo, and other info: issue, discussion, ...

The way you initially wrote with bold text and suggestive questions made it look like you were baiting for an argument.

Initially I did not write in bold. I wrote in bold to emphasize my unanswered questions. People tend not to answer questions, but rather give unrelated statements. This is not an OPNsense forum problem, but apparently how communication now works. 20 years ago, you asked a question and you got an answer to that exact question.
These days you get comments, deflection, part of an answer that could have been derived if all of it had been answered, or an answer that might not have anything to do with the question that was asked.

The answer "it was a deliberate design choice" by itself is utterly useless unless I am told why.

I was just trying to emphasize the question and I believe that is what bold is for. To emphasize text. I did not use all CAPS, btw.

But if at the top I select "show me 50 entries per page" there is absolutely no reason not to just render a table with 50 lines and let the browser and me handle it.

Thank you, this was exactly my point as well.

We are constantly working on improving the user experience with the new tabulator library.

My point is that the user experience hasn't been improved in this case. At least not for me. For me the experience got worse in this specific case. Otherwise I wouldn't have brought it up. Please check my first post again. I mentioned that I missed rules because of this. I did not use profanity, nor did I attack anyone. I voiced an opinion. That's all. And apparently I am not alone with my opinion.
I will read up on the tabulator issue, but I am not a GUI person, which means I will be most likely over my head with this one.

So maybe there are options or ways to get back the old behavior even with the new library. If not, the new libary should fix this problem to actually improve the user experience. Otherwise you could just remove the "number-of-rules" button and the pagination functionality, since those things are pretty much useless now.

Apart from all that I am very happy with OPNsense. I am not someone to complain without reason and I actually still haven't complained yet. I mentioned that the user experience is worse for me. A complaint is filed, if the other party did something wrong. But I don't think that anybody did anything wrong in this case. A combination of circumstances led to an unfavorable result and I can't complain about something like this.

If you want to complain please do so on github.

I was asking a question, and asking the people, who decided on that new design, why it is better is constructive. There must have been a thought process, which I don't understand but want to. If you think this is a complaint, it is not. Not yet, I usually don't complain, but I want to understand why things are the way they are. It is a subjective opinion. I love OPNsense, but dislike the new design with the heat of a thousand suns.
However, maybe I don't understand why the new design was deliberate. Guess what? This is why I asked the question. And then maybe I will think differently.
Also, if it is not better in the eyes of the people who are responsible for this, why was it done in the first place? So don't get me wrong, they must have thought it is better, they didn't just roll a dice, did they? So for them the new design was better, subjective or not. I still want to know what it was exactly.

[how is this supposed to be better than it was before?]

It's a deliberate design choice.

Which begs the question: how is this supposed to be better than it was before? (there must be a reason for the design choice. As mentioned before, it renders the number of rules to display pretty much useless now.)