From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com>
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [212.224.123.68])
 (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)
 key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by lists.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2D90B8005E
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Tue, 16 Nov 2021 14:24:35 +0100 (CET)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 21FC317698
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Tue, 16 Nov 2021 14:24:35 +0100 (CET)
Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (proxmox-new.maurer-it.com
 [94.136.29.106])
 (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)
 key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS id 1179217688
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Tue, 16 Nov 2021 14:24:34 +0100 (CET)
Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
 by proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id D847F43C42
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Tue, 16 Nov 2021 14:24:33 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <aa07707b-cf0d-a48c-bad4-6275c0723b68@proxmox.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2021 14:24:32 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:95.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/95.0
Content-Language: en-US
To: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>,
 Fabian Ebner <f.ebner@proxmox.com>
References: <20211116130822.47803-1-f.ebner@proxmox.com>
From: Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com>
In-Reply-To: <20211116130822.47803-1-f.ebner@proxmox.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results:  0
 AWL 0.113 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address
 BAYES_00                 -1.9 Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1%
 KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment
 SPF_HELO_NONE           0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record
 SPF_PASS               -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record
 URIBL_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked. See
 http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block for more
 information. [node.name]
Subject: [pve-devel] applied: [PATCH manager] ui: ceph: osd: handle edge
 case with dead node
X-BeenThere: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel.lists.proxmox.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/options/pve-devel>, 
 <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.proxmox.com/pipermail/pve-devel/>
List-Post: <mailto:pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
List-Help: <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel>, 
 <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2021 13:24:35 -0000

On 16.11.21 14:08, Fabian Ebner wrote:
> If there is a left-over entry for a dead node in the ceph osd tree
> the panel wouldn't show and produce an
>     Uncaught TypeError: data.versions is undefined
> because of an access
>     node.version = data.versions[node.name];
> further below (not visible in the patch itself).
> 
> AFAICT, the same issue would also happen when something went wrong
> with getting the broadcasted ceph-versions, or when a node is part
> of Ceph, but not PVE.
> 
> Handle the situation gracefully by always initializing data.versions.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Fabian Ebner <f.ebner@proxmox.com>
> ---
>  www/manager6/ceph/OSD.js | 3 ++-
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
>

applied, thanks!