Re: [PATCH pve-cluster v5 2/7] datacenter config: add unique-next-id to schema

[Fiona Ebner <f.ebner@proxmox.com>]

Am 23.09.26 um 10:01 AM schrieb Fiona Ebner:
> Am 23.09.26 um 9:48 AM schrieb Fiona Ebner:
>> Am 22.09.26 um 4:43 PM schrieb Michael Köppl:
>>> On Tue Sep 22, 2026 at 4:22 PM CEST, Fiona Ebner wrote:
>>>> Am 21.09.26 um 5:54 PM schrieb Michael Köppl:
>>>>> From: Severen Redwood <severen.redwood@sitehost.co.nz>
>>>>>
>>>>> Add the `unique-next-id` property to the datacenter config schema to
>>>>> track whether only unique (ie. neither currently nor previously in use)
>>>>> VM/CT IDs should be suggested by the `/cluster/nextid` API endpoint.
>>>>>
>>>>> Co-authored-by: Daniel Krambrock <krambrock@hrz.uni-marburg.de>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Severen Redwood <severen.redwood@sitehost.co.nz>
>>>>> [MK: use datacenter in commit message instead of datacentre]
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Michael Köppl <m.koeppl@proxmox.com>
>>>>> ---
>>>>>  src/PVE/DataCenterConfig.pm | 6 ++++++
>>>>>  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/src/PVE/DataCenterConfig.pm b/src/PVE/DataCenterConfig.pm
>>>>> index 004122e..54f9c10 100644
>>>>> --- a/src/PVE/DataCenterConfig.pm
>>>>> +++ b/src/PVE/DataCenterConfig.pm
>>>>> @@ -415,6 +415,12 @@ my $datacenter_schema = {
>>>>>              format => $next_id_format,
>>>>>              description => "Control the range for the free VMID auto-selection pool.",
>>>>
>>>> Should we add this as a sub-property of the next-id property string
>>>> instead rather than a separate new option?
>>>
>>> Thanks for having a look! Yeah, I think this would also work better in
>>> the web UI if we also change the option there to "Next Free VMID" and
>>> simply add a "unique" checkbox. Just my 2 cents, though.
>>
>> Sounds good.
> 
> Or even "Force unique", so people know it's going to be enforced and may
> lead to errors if violated and that it's not just for suggestions like
> the ranges are.

Ah, we do not enforce it yet, sorry. I wonder if we should add another
sub-property 'enforce'? And adapt add_id() to check for that if enabled?
For some use cases, that might be desirable.

>>>>>          },
>>>>> +        'unique-next-id' => {
>>>>> +            optional => 1,
>>>>> +            type => 'boolean',
>>>>> +            description =>
>>>>> +                "Only suggest VMIDs that are neither currently in use nor have previously been used.",
>>>>
>>>> Style nit: line too long
>>>> Nit: guest ID instead of VMID
>>>
>>> I mostly kept this as VMID because in the description for next-id we
>>> also use VMID and I wanted to avoid using different nomenclature for
>>> what essentially affects the same kind of ID. If we make it a
>>> sub-property, should we use "Next Free Guest ID" in the web UI as well
>>> as "guest ID" in the description here? If we keep them as separate
>>> properties, it would IMO make sense to also adapt the next-id
>>> description to make it clear that this refers to the same thing.
>>
>> Agreed, if we use "guest ID" it should also be adapted for the other
>> description/UI.