Re: [RFC storage, manager] schema-driven web UI dialog for custom storage plugins

[Dominik Csapak <d.csapak@proxmox.com>]

On 7/10/26 6:26 PM, Ciro Iriarte wrote:
> Hello,
> 

Hi,

> I'd like feedback on a supported way for a custom storage plugin to
> contribute its create/edit dialog to the web UI, so third-party plugins
> no longer have to inject JavaScript into pve-manager's index.html.tpl.
> 
> Decision I am asking about
> --------------------------
> Should pve-storage let a plugin declare a GUI form schema that
> pve-manager renders into the storage add/edit dialog, instead of the
> plugin shipping ExtJS and patching index.html.tpl? If yes, I propose the
> minimal contract below.
> 
> Background
> ----------
> A custom storage plugin (PVE::Storage::Custom) registers its config
> properties server-side via properties()/options(), but there is no
> supported way to contribute the create/edit dialog. The only working
> method today is to ship an ExtJS panel and inject a <script> into
> /usr/share/pve-manager/index.html.tpl (via a packaging trigger), which:
> - edits a file owned by pve-manager, re-broken on every upgrade, and
> - depends on private manager6 internals (PVE.panel.StorageBase,
>    PVE.Utils.storageSchema) with no API-stability guarantee.
> 
> This is the JS-injection concern raised in #3420. That bug's 2022 fix
> added the `type-text` property (a friendly grid label); the form
> generation was deferred. In #3420 Thomas Lamprecht suggested following
> the ACME DNS-Challenge provider pattern, "where we return a schema ...
> and even generate the GUI's form fields." This proposes that deferred
> half.
> 
> Most of the needed information already lives server-side: the registered
> SectionConfig property carries type/format/default, and options() marks
> which keys are `fixed` (immutable after create). The dialog is largely
> re-encoding data the plugin already declares.
> 
> Proposed contract (pve-storage)
> -------------------------------
> - Add an optional plugin-provided GUI schema (JSON-serializable), e.g.
>    via plugindata() or a new method, carrying presentation metadata only:
>    field labels, grouping (general/advanced), a widget hint, enum display
>    text, placeholder, and the onlineHelp anchor.
> - Widget type, required-ness, min/max, default, and immutable-on-edit are
>    derived from the already-registered property and the options() `fixed`
>    set -- not duplicated in the schema.
> - Bump the storage APIVER/APIAGE.
> 
> Consumer (pve-manager)
> ----------------------
> - Add a generic schema-driven storage InputPanel (extending the existing
>    storage base panel) that builds the create/edit dialog from the schema.
> - Deliver the schema through the existing plugin metadata the GUI already
>    reads for the storage type list, so no index.html.tpl patching and no
>    third-party JS.
> 
> Scope / compatibility
> ---------------------
> - Opt-in and backward compatible: a plugin with no schema behaves exactly
>    as today (raw type token, no dialog).
> - Secret fields never round-trip the stored value (blank = unchanged).
> - Common widgets only (text, integer, boolean, enum, password,
>    content-type) cover the typical plugin. A supported JS drop-in plus a
>    public registerStoragePlugin() escape hatch, for plugins that need a
>    custom widget or validator, could be a follow-up rather than part of
>    this.
> 
> Out of scope
> ------------
> - Custom ExtJS widgets/validators (the escape-hatch follow-up above).
> - Reworking built-in storage dialogs; they can adopt the generic panel
>    later but need not change for this.
> 
> If the contract looks acceptable, I'll follow up with an [RFC PATCH]
> series against pve-storage and then pve-manager. My CLA is on file.
> 
> Tracking: https://bugzilla.proxmox.com/show_bug.cgi?id=7808 (and the
> earlier #3420).
> 
> Thanks,
> Ciro
> 
> 
> 


just so you know, Max is already working on GUI support for custom 
storage plugins:

https://lore.proxmox.com/pve-devel/20260623143402.772452-1-m.carrara@proxmox.com/

the last rebase was end of june, so not that long ago.

Instead of posting your own patches, a review and/or test from you side
could help here...