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 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.

>>>>          },
>>>> +        '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.