Validate maximum memory allocation

[Scrumplex]

Closes #426

Add a small checkmark/cross/warning symbol to the memory setting to tell the user if their input is a good idea or not.

Also raise memory limit to 1 TiB

[Scrumplex]

New screenshots:

[Edgars-Cirulis]

Tested with my memory reserved hardwere.

• Allocate more then 6.9 GB Test passed. instance lunches with 8 GB

Looks good to me

[TheKodeToad]

updateThresholds is duplicated. Apart from that (mostly) looks good. Maybe sysMiB could be static?

[Scrumplex]

updateThresholds is duplicated. Apart from that (mostly) looks good. Maybe sysMiB could be static?

It is. But sadly, all instance-override settings are like that. We need to clean that up in the future.

[TheKodeToad]

updateThresholds is duplicated. Apart from that (mostly) looks good. Maybe sysMiB could be static?

It is. But sadly, all instance-override settings are like that. We need to clean that up in the future.

:P seems like Prism does that a lot (likely inherited from MultiMC).

Maybe you could still make the variable static?
Also, I don't see a need for the block at the end.

[flowln]

looking good to me!

I was gonna say that it would perhaps make sense to also fix #427 in here, but I wasn't able to reproduce that issue neither here nor or develop, so idk 🤷‍♀️

[ghost]

but I wasn't able to reproduce that issue neither here nor or develop

That issue only occurs with the setup screen

15-31-24.mp4

[flowln]

ah, that makes a bit more sense xD

well then, this PR needs to bump the maximum memory in that place too
i wonder though, maybe it would be nicer if we could remove the VersionSelectWidget thingy from JavaSettingsWidget, and make it generic enough so that we can reuse it in all three Java thingies?

[Scrumplex]

maybe it would be nicer if we could remove the VersionSelectWidget thingy from JavaSettingsWidget, and make it generic enough so that we can reuse it in all three Java thingies?

Ideally, all settings pages should just be able to handle both global and instance-specific pages, depending on how they were instantiated.
That way, we could get rid of a lot of duplicate code.

[flowln]

Ideally, all settings pages should just be able to handle both global and instance-specific pages, depending on how they were instantiated. That way, we could get rid of a lot of duplicate code.

well, yeah, but in this particular case, even if we did that, there'd still be some duplicate code with the widget for the wizard :|