From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <f.ebner@proxmox.com>
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [212.224.123.68])
 (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)
 key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by lists.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 739E9687F7
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Tue,  9 Mar 2021 11:28:43 +0100 (CET)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 689F98825
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Tue,  9 Mar 2021 11:28:43 +0100 (CET)
Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (proxmox-new.maurer-it.com
 [212.186.127.180])
 (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)
 key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS id 440398815
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Tue,  9 Mar 2021 11:28:42 +0100 (CET)
Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
 by proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 0401D457FF
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Tue,  9 Mar 2021 11:28:42 +0100 (CET)
To: Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com>,
 Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
References: <20210303115042.22061-1-f.ebner@proxmox.com>
 <20210303115042.22061-3-f.ebner@proxmox.com>
 <c7951422-c06a-5122-6a0c-907b0da0f9e1@proxmox.com>
From: Fabian Ebner <f.ebner@proxmox.com>
Message-ID: <1478058a-3d04-dd5a-d43f-94e9a58b84b8@proxmox.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2021 11:28:41 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/78.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <c7951422-c06a-5122-6a0c-907b0da0f9e1@proxmox.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results:  0
 AWL -0.249 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address
 KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment
 KAM_NUMSUBJECT 0.5 Subject ends in numbers excluding current years
 NICE_REPLY_A           -0.001 Looks like a legit reply (A)
 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
Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH v2 manager 3/3] fix #2745: ui: backup: allow
 users to specify remove=1
X-BeenThere: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel.lists.proxmox.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/options/pve-devel>, 
 <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.proxmox.com/pipermail/pve-devel/>
List-Post: <mailto:pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
List-Help: <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel>, 
 <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 09 Mar 2021 10:28:43 -0000

On 05.03.21 21:34, Thomas Lamprecht wrote:
> On 03.03.21 12:50, Fabian Ebner wrote:
>> A user with Datastore.AllocateSpace, VM.Audit, VM.Backup can already remove
>> backups from the GUI manually, so it shouldn't be a problem if they can set
>> the remove flag when starting a manual backup in the GUI.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Fabian Ebner <f.ebner@proxmox.com>
>> ---
>>
>> Changes from v1:
>>      * Rebase on current master.
>>      * Do not use the label 'Remove', because that is rather confusing, instead
>>        use 'Prune'.
>>
>>   www/manager6/window/Backup.js | 13 ++++++++++++-
>>   1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/www/manager6/window/Backup.js b/www/manager6/window/Backup.js
>> index 615073f3..d5b585bb 100644
>> --- a/www/manager6/window/Backup.js
>> +++ b/www/manager6/window/Backup.js
>> @@ -68,6 +68,17 @@ Ext.define('PVE.window.Backup', {
>>   		    name: 'mailto',
>>   		    emptyText: Proxmox.Utils.noneText,
>>   		},
>> +		{
>> +		    xtype: 'proxmoxcheckbox',
>> +		    name: 'remove',
>> +		    checked: false,
>> +		    uncheckedValue: 0,
>> +		    fieldLabel: gettext('Prune'),
>> +		    autoEl: {
>> +			tag: 'div',
>> +			'data-qtip': gettext('Prune older backups afterwards'),
>> +		    },
>> +		},
> 
> I find this confusing in the case the storage has no prune settings configured and
> also if there's one its intransparent as one cannot really tell which one.
> So I'd maybe only enable (or show?) this if it can actually do something, and in
> that case I'd also show the current settings (they could change in theory until
> the job is submitted, but not the norm and still better than nothing).
> 
> 

I don't think there is an API call to GET the currently configured 
vzdump properties yet. With that, we can set the other properties in the 
manual backup window (mailto, compression, etc.) to their currently 
configured values too. Also, if we pass along the previously retrieved 
prune settings as an API param, there is no race.

>>   	    ],
>>   	});
>>   
>> @@ -82,7 +93,7 @@ Ext.define('PVE.window.Backup', {
>>   		    storage: storage,
>>   		    vmid: me.vmid,
>>   		    mode: values.mode,
>> -		    remove: 0,
>> +		    remove: values.remove,
>>   		};
>>   
>>   		if (values.mailto) {
>>
>