From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from gate001.proxmox.com (gate001.proxmox.com [IPv6:2a0f:8001:1:32::40]) by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 230161FF13A for ; Wed, 22 Jul 2026 16:49:09 +0200 (CEST) Received: from gate001.proxmox.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by gate001.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 2452121337; Wed, 22 Jul 2026 16:49:08 +0200 (CEST) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2026 16:49:04 +0200 Message-Id: Subject: Re: [PATCH manager v2 1/2] fix #5475: configurable window title From: "Elias Huhsovitz" To: "Thomas Ellmenreich" , X-Mailer: aerc 0.20.0 References: <20260720100329.118508-1-t.ellmenreich@proxmox.com> <20260720100329.118508-2-t.ellmenreich@proxmox.com> In-Reply-To: X-Bm-Milter-Handled: 55990f41-d878-4baa-be0a-ee34c49e34d2 X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp: 1784731715979 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.171 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address DMARC_MISSING 0.1 Missing DMARC policy KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment (newer systems) RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW -0.7 Sender listed at https://www.dnswl.org/, low trust SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record Message-ID-Hash: ISWFEQ4QD3FUOXC4TRJVSVVLM45KNIEA X-Message-ID-Hash: ISWFEQ4QD3FUOXC4TRJVSVVLM45KNIEA X-MailFrom: e.huhsovitz@proxmox.com X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; loop; banned-address; emergency; member-moderation; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.10 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion List-Help: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: A few comments adressing 1. & 3. On Wed Jul 22, 2026 at 2:43 PM CEST, Thomas Ellmenreich wrote: > Thanks again for your review. I realised I had a question here as well. > > [snip] > >> 1. The setting names render including the $ symbol, e.g. ($nodename, $fq= dn) in the WebUI.=20 >> This makes it seem broken from an end user point of view.=20 >> You generally do not expect placeholder values in settings menu. > > Rendering the '$' was on purpose, as they are placeholders. Would you > recommend removing just the '$' or would you rather render the actual > values? > > I technically copied it from somewhere, as I had a different placeholder > marker, although I can't seem to find that reference anymore. While using $ is a standard programming convention for variables,=20 displaying it literally in a user-facing dropdown=20 (e.g., $nodename - Proxmox Virtual Environment)=20 can look like a broken string interpolation or a rendering bug to an end us= er.=20 Instead of showing the template string, my suggestions would be descriptive labels for the items, e.g.: * __default__ -> "Node Name (Default)" * node-and-cluster -> "Node and Cluster Name" * fqdn -> Fully Qualified Domain Name (FQDN) >> 3. I recommend adding some general robustness in case of undef values: >> Initialize $window_title to a safe value not relying on the cluster, in >> case of an error. Expect that the underlying API/calls might return >> undef. > > It was an active choice to show something broken in the case of undef, as= I > thought hiding the error could also be confusing. But then again, I don't= mind > using the fallback value. IMO the problem is that the undef might get dereference and cause a 'die'= =20 potentially aborting the entire entire eval block in pveproy.pm:255. I would advocate for "graceful" degradation: - add a defined check to prevent the crash - initialize the $window_title with a safe default. You can also add a warn statement inside the subroutine so it does not fail silently.