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 D4C911FF0B2 for ; Mon, 24 Aug 2026 12:47:45 +0200 (CEST) Received: from gate001.proxmox.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by gate001.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id E062C215AE; Mon, 24 Aug 2026 12:47:43 +0200 (CEST) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2026 12:47:37 +0200 Message-Id: Subject: Re: applied: [PATCH datacenter-manager 1/1] fix #7135: openid auth: improve error logging From: "Thomas Ellmenreich" To: "Lukas Wagner" , X-Mailer: aerc 0.20.0 References: <20260821102147.220586-1-t.ellmenreich@proxmox.com> <178731214859.187715.588193495057111260.b4-ty@proxmox.com> In-Reply-To: <178731214859.187715.588193495057111260.b4-ty@proxmox.com> X-Bm-Milter-Handled: 55990f41-d878-4baa-be0a-ee34c49e34d2 X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp: 1787568427376 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.699 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: NM3XD36ISWJZT677FUT2BLBC2S3TYVNB X-Message-ID-Hash: NM3XD36ISWJZT677FUT2BLBC2S3TYVNB X-MailFrom: t.ellmenreich@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: On Fri Aug 21, 2026 at 1:35 PM CEST, Lukas Wagner wrote: [snip] > Applied, thanks for the patch! > > I think the way you implemented this makes sense. Having the error with t= he > entire context in the system logs should make troubleshooting way easier.= We > could still consider returning more details in the API response later, if= we > desire to, the current change does not limit us from doing so. > > It appears that PBS suffers from the same issue, could you maybe send a p= atch > for there as well? (cc @Chris) [snip] I'm just now looking into this. I decided to also see how PVE handles the same situation, and it seems that all three products have a different approach. I would propose changing them all to the approach implemented with in patch. The approaches are as follows: PDM: shows a shallow error in the UI and logs the full error. PBS: shows even less information in the UI and doesn't log anything. PVE: shows the full error in the UI. I would create two patches to standardise the approaches to match PDM's method. What does everyone else think? @Lukas, @Chris