From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <t.lamprecht@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 38FD96CE2F
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 3 Feb 2021 07:21:46 +0100 (CET)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 2E7B815F93
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 3 Feb 2021 07:21:46 +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 AE44315F89
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 3 Feb 2021 07:21:45 +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 729CE4615F
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 3 Feb 2021 07:21:45 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <9dad6182-b885-24ee-0559-e28cf66d7eba@proxmox.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Feb 2021 07:21:39 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:86.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/86.0
Content-Language: en-US
To: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>,
Aaron Lauterer <a.lauterer@proxmox.com>
References: <20210201142131.30024-1-a.lauterer@proxmox.com>
<20210201142131.30024-8-a.lauterer@proxmox.com>
<7f0b50fd-2620-226f-8341-ca21b7bdd45c@proxmox.com>
<88f63c1f-c303-85d2-e798-56cccf561e1d@proxmox.com>
From: Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com>
In-Reply-To: <88f63c1f-c303-85d2-e798-56cccf561e1d@proxmox.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0
AWL 0.025 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address
KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment
NICE_REPLY_A -0.178 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 manager 7/7] ui: qemu/HardwareView: add
CDROM permission check to edit button
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: Wed, 03 Feb 2021 06:21:46 -0000
On 02.02.21 14:41, Aaron Lauterer wrote:
>=20
>=20
> On 2/2/21 2:13 PM, Dominik Csapak wrote:
>> well this is hardly readable anymore... (not your fault)
>> but, would it now not be disabled if i have no CDROM perms
>> even if it is a disk and i have perms for that,
>> because of short-circuiting ?
>=20
> Oh yeah, thanks for catching that. One more comment inline
>=20
>=20
>>
>> On 2/1/21 3:21 PM, Aaron Lauterer wrote:
>>> Add CDROM permission check to disable the Edit button if they are not=
>>> present.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Aaron Lauterer <a.lauterer@proxmox.com>
>>> ---
>>> =C2=A0 www/manager6/qemu/HardwareView.js | 6 +++++-
>>> =C2=A0 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/www/manager6/qemu/HardwareView.js b/www/manager6/qemu/Ha=
rdwareView.js
>>> index 252a8e72..56bdc0a1 100644
>>> --- a/www/manager6/qemu/HardwareView.js
>>> +++ b/www/manager6/qemu/HardwareView.js
>>> @@ -600,7 +600,11 @@ Ext.define('PVE.qemu.HardwareView', {
>>> =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 remove_btn.set=
Text(isUsedDisk && !isCloudInit ? remove_btn.altText : remove_btn.default=
Text);
>>> =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 remove_btn.RES=
TMethod =3D isUnusedDisk ? 'POST':'PUT';
>>> -=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 edit_btn.setDisabled(rec.=
data.delete || !rowdef.editor || isCloudInit || (!isCDRom && !diskCap));
>>> +=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 edit_btn.setDisabled(rec.=
data.delete ||
>>> +=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=
=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 !rowdef.editor ||
>>> +=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=
=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 isCloudInit ||
>>> +=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=
=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 !caps.vms['VM.Config.CDROM'] ||
>=20
> It doesn't really help readability but should work if we additionally c=
heck if the current selection is a cdrom. This should prevent short-circu=
iting in that case
>=20
> =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 (isC=
DRom && !caps.vms['VM.Config.CDROM'])) ||
please also split all lines consistently, i.e., if this would stay as is =
then it should
be written as
edit_btn.setDisabled(
rec.data.delete ||
!rowdef.editor ||
isCloudInit ||
!caps.vms['VM.Config.CDROM'] ||
(!isCDRom && !diskCap)
);
less indentation but also less crowded (as method call and first argument=
aren't glued together)