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 C43C71FF0B3 for ; Wed, 11 Nov 2026 11:56:45 +0100 (CET) Received: from gate001.proxmox.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by gate001.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id B2A722163D; Wed, 11 Nov 2026 11:56:41 +0100 (CET) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2026 11:56:37 +0100 Message-Id: From: "Max R. Carrara" Subject: Re: [PATCH pve-common v4 01/17] json schema: add multiline string format To: "Wolfgang Bumiller" X-Mailer: aerc 0.18.2-0-ge037c095a049 References: <20261106154554.2182986-1-m.carrara@proxmox.com> <20261106154554.2182986-2-m.carrara@proxmox.com> In-Reply-To: X-Bm-Milter-Handled: 55990f41-d878-4baa-be0a-ee34c49e34d2 X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp: 1794394597131 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.307 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: LDYGZEUC446TC543FMUOJPC267AKDWMV X-Message-ID-Hash: LDYGZEUC446TC543FMUOJPC267AKDWMV X-MailFrom: m.carrara@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 CC: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com, Alfonso Kuen , Thomas Ellmenreich , Jakob Klocker , Thomas Lamprecht X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.10 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion List-Help: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: On Tue Nov 10, 2026 at 2:39 PM CET, Wolfgang Bumiller wrote: > Given that right now, newlines are almost never wanted/allowed in our > API (apart from comments), there's a case to be made here that we might > just want a multiline schema flag. (Where by default we'd reject > newlines. This could potentially remove a whole class of possible future > section-config related bugs=E2=80=A6) If a fear of SectionConfig bugs is preventing us from simply adding multiline strings, we should seriously consider migrating the SectionConfig *file format* to something different in the long term. > > Also, consider that on the rust side, 'format', 'enum', 'pattern', and > the verify-functions are part of the `ApiStringFormat` *enum*, so you > can only have one, [...] Which is something we should change eventually then, since validation keywords are independent unless explicitly stated otherwise, at least as per section 3.1.1 of this draft: https://json-schema.org/draft-07/draft-handrews-json-schema-validation-00.p= df Sure, you could argue that it doesn't make sense to have `format`, `enum`, and `pattern` co-exist for the same property, but the spec doesn't place any restrictions on this. > [...] and we do not have *named* formats at all. Why not? > > Thomas also played around with the thought of adding a multiline boolean > to string schemas, so this may be a good time to come to a decision > here. > > IMO, while not strictly being part of any JSONSchema/openapi spec, it > would be fine to have that. Also, I'm quite sure that whenever we use > patterns or other formats, a pattern which does not want to opt into > multiline support should be written in a way which does not allow > newlines *anyway*, so for the most part it would act as a hint, but > additionally provide a safe-guard just in case. NAK -- I don't think we should deviate from the spec just to make a multiline string format work. The `format` key handles it already, and any frontend helpers that convert the schema of a property to UI elements can check for this format and adjust the element's type accordingly. This is already what this series does, and unless I have missed something, works just fine without any additional contortions. The exception here is that SectionConfig, due to how its file format is designed, does not allow reading / writing multiline strings, which means that properties with `format =3D> 'multiline'` would have to be handled as a special case. We already do this for many other properties in `encode_value` / `decode_value` anyway -- and in the case of the `multiline` format, the call site can opt to reading from / writing to a file for that particular property. > > On Fri, Nov 06, 2026 at 04:45:37PM +0100, Max R. Carrara wrote: > > Add a new format named "multiline". > > > > This format explicitly signals to other components (e.g. a client) > > that a string is a multiline string and should remain one, without > > folding newlines or replacing them with spaces, for example. > > > > Signed-off-by: Max R. Carrara > > --- > > src/PVE/JSONSchema.pm | 5 +++++ > > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+) > > > > diff --git a/src/PVE/JSONSchema.pm b/src/PVE/JSONSchema.pm > > index 34f2949..5790a32 100644 > > --- a/src/PVE/JSONSchema.pm > > +++ b/src/PVE/JSONSchema.pm > > @@ -236,10 +236,15 @@ sub get_renderer { > > > > # register some common type for pve > > > > register_format('string', sub { }); # allow format =3D> 'string-list' > > > > +# A multiline string. > > +# Used to explicitly tell other components that a string should not > > +# have its newlines folded or replaced with spaces. > > +register_format('multiline', sub { }); > > + > > register_format('urlencoded', \&pve_verify_urlencoded); > > > > sub pve_verify_urlencoded { > > my ($text, $noerr) =3D @_; > > if ($text !~ /^[-%a-zA-Z0-9_.!~*'()]*\z/) { > > -- > > 2.47.3