From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from gate001.proxmox.com (gate001.proxmox.com [45.144.208.40]) by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E4E691FF09E for ; Tue, 18 Aug 2026 17:08:17 +0200 (CEST) Received: from gate001.proxmox.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by gate001.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 8E7B021386; Tue, 18 Aug 2026 17:08:17 +0200 (CEST) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2026 17:08:12 +0200 Message-Id: Subject: Re: [PATCH proxmox 3/4] api-types: add a scheme generic URL regex From: "Shan Shaji" To: "Thomas Ellmenreich" , X-Mailer: aerc 0.20.0 References: <20260813150551.415237-1-t.ellmenreich@proxmox.com> <20260813150551.415237-4-t.ellmenreich@proxmox.com> In-Reply-To: <20260813150551.415237-4-t.ellmenreich@proxmox.com> X-Bm-Milter-Handled: 55990f41-d878-4baa-be0a-ee34c49e34d2 X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp: 1787065671340 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.649 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_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 Message-ID-Hash: IQDXGQYQEFO5ZJYH7XYTW6C3GV3DZTHV X-Message-ID-Hash: IQDXGQYQEFO5ZJYH7XYTW6C3GV3DZTHV X-MailFrom: s.shaji@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 Datacenter Manager development discussion List-Help: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Hi, I have tested the changes and went through the code. AFAICT, everything looks good except for one thing. Without the changes, when sending a curl request, I got the error as mentioned in the ticket. After applying the fix, the "redirect-url" regex validation works when using the same test URLs from the test and I am getting a valid "data" response. However, when using the redirect URIs without the host part (e.g: pveauth://, proxman://)= , the validation still fails. AFAIK, in Android and iOS, since the host part is not mandatory for custom schemes, IMHO it would be better to support the case where the host part is optional as well. That is, as we discussed off list: for http(s) URLs, the host part is mandatory, and for custom URLs, the host part doesn't have to be mandatory. On Thu Aug 13, 2026 at 5:05 PM CEST, Thomas Ellmenreich wrote: > The current URL regex, HTTP_URL_REGEX, is specific to the HTTP and HTTPS > schemes. This patch creates a new regex that is scheme-generic and thus > allows any other valid scheme. > > It also adds tests that cover some basic URL edge cases. > > Signed-off-by: Thomas Ellmenreich > --- > pbs-api-types/src/lib.rs | 1 + > proxmox-schema/src/api_types.rs | 40 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++- > 2 files changed, 40 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/pbs-api-types/src/lib.rs b/pbs-api-types/src/lib.rs > index 21ef733d..924f356b 100644 > --- a/pbs-api-types/src/lib.rs > +++ b/pbs-api-types/src/lib.rs > @@ -44,6 +44,7 @@ pub use proxmox_schema::api_types::HTTP_URL_SCHEMA; > pub use proxmox_schema::api_types::MULTI_LINE_COMMENT_SCHEMA; > pub use proxmox_schema::api_types::NODE_SCHEMA; > pub use proxmox_schema::api_types::SINGLE_LINE_COMMENT_FORMAT; > +pub use proxmox_schema::api_types::URL_SCHEMA; > pub use proxmox_schema::api_types::{ > BLOCKDEVICE_DISK_AND_PARTITION_NAME_SCHEMA, BLOCKDEVICE_NAME_SCHEMA, > }; >>snip<<