Re: [PATCH datacenter-manager] ui: auto-installer: mark regenerating auto installer tokens as dangerous

["Shannon Sterz" <s.sterz@proxmox.com>]

On Thu May 28, 2026 at 11:54 AM CEST, Thomas Lamprecht wrote:
> Thx for the patch and the quick apply. FWIW this is missing commit
> message body and none added on applying, a short sentence here would
> be appreciated.
>
> Am 28.05.26 um 11:25 schrieb Shannon Sterz:
>> Signed-off-by: Shannon Sterz <s.sterz@proxmox.com>
>> ---
>>  ui/src/remotes/auto_installer/token_panel.rs | 1 +
>>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/ui/src/remotes/auto_installer/token_panel.rs b/ui/src/remotes/auto_installer/token_panel.rs
>> index 3732ffe..0ee5afc 100644
>> --- a/ui/src/remotes/auto_installer/token_panel.rs
>> +++ b/ui/src/remotes/auto_installer/token_panel.rs
>> @@ -218,6 +218,7 @@ impl LoadableComponent for AuthTokenPanelComponent {
>>                          All existing ISOs with this token will lose access!"
>>                      ))
>>                      .disabled(self.selection.is_empty())
>> +                    .dangerous(true)
>>                      .on_activate(link.callback(|_| Message::RegenerateSecret)),
>>              )
>>              .with_flex_spacer()
>
> IMO a bit borderline, as this is not like a classic API token where this
> causes active service disruption.
> OTOH. setting that flag hasn't that big of an impact and doesn't really
> hurt either, so fine. I'd just avoid using it for everything that can be
> framed as destructive, as most things with a confirmation prompts might be,
> as then it looses the punch a bit (or could again just be the default).
> But when implementing these yesterday I also could not come up with a
> definitive rule that always holds, so certainly not a clear cut - just
> wanted to avoid that we use this to liberally now - as said, here it was
> OK to do (except the short missing rationale).

ack, i'll add a rationale next time.