Re: [PATCH pve-storage 7/7] api: add /nodes/<node>/storage/<storage>/identity route

["Lukas Wagner" <l.wagner@proxmox.com>]

On Tue Apr 21, 2026 at 2:35 PM CEST, Thomas Lamprecht wrote:
> Am 17.04.26 um 11:10 schrieb Lukas Wagner:
>> On Fri Apr 17, 2026 at 10:54 AM CEST, Fiona Ebner wrote:
>>> Am 15.04.26 um 1:57 PM schrieb Lukas Wagner:
>>>> @@ -308,6 +308,7 @@ __PACKAGE__->register_method({
>>>>              { subdir => 'download-url' },
>>>>              { subdir => 'file-restore' },
>>>>              { subdir => 'import-metadata' },
>>>> +            { subdir => 'identity' },
>>>
>>> Just bike-shedding, but I'm wondering if 'identifier' would be slightly
>>> more natural?
>> 
>> I can change it if you prefer, but I think I prefer 'identity', if I'm
>> honest.
> Why not "instance-id"? it's used widely in this series and is IMO quite
> descriptive.

It was 'instance-id' in the RFC, but in the patch notes I mentioned that
a more generic term could maybe be useful in case we want need to reuse the
concept of a identity for other storages as well, to which Chris agreed.

After some brief discussion with Chris I went for 'identity' [1].

In the PBS-client part of these patches, Chris mentioned that
'instance-id' alone could be misleading [2, 3], which is why I went with
the names that I used in this series.

If you prefer the more specific 'instance-id', I can of course change it
back to that. Would you then also propose changing the terms used in
PBS? There we now the 'server-identity' sub-commands for manager and
client and the '/nodes/.../server-identity' routes, which *return* the
`pbs-instance-id` field in the response.

[1] https://lore.proxmox.com/pve-devel/98f893be-871c-4a46-9b06-3ee17978131d@proxmox.com/

[2] https://lore.proxmox.com/pve-devel/9a4d051a-58a5-445f-a127-c11706d93194@proxmox.com/
[3] https://lore.proxmox.com/pve-devel/ee0dcf35-41fe-4393-a86c-5bf1871633a4@proxmox.com/