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 E13241FF12C for ; Wed, 05 Aug 2026 11:27:09 +0200 (CEST) Received: from gate001.proxmox.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by gate001.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 2C6C22188B; Wed, 05 Aug 2026 11:26:59 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2026 11:26:56 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [RFC qemu-server 4/4] remote migrate: add precondition check endpoint To: Erik Fastermann , pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com References: <20260721115827.163442-1-e.fastermann@proxmox.com> <20260721115827.163442-5-e.fastermann@proxmox.com> <45579630-54b9-4f3d-81e3-efa9e67a59b2@proxmox.com> Content-Language: en-US From: Fiona Ebner In-Reply-To: <45579630-54b9-4f3d-81e3-efa9e67a59b2@proxmox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Bm-Milter-Handled: 55990f41-d878-4baa-be0a-ee34c49e34d2 X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp: 1785922003274 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.146 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: LAEKSQSCFHEOGYIAFY65OUMHF3CMRUAF X-Message-ID-Hash: LAEKSQSCFHEOGYIAFY65OUMHF3CMRUAF X-MailFrom: f.ebner@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: Am 31.07.26 um 3:42 PM schrieb Erik Fastermann: >> Am 21.07.26 um 1:58 PM schrieb Erik Fastermann: >>> +                storage => get_standard_option( >>> +                    'pve-storage-id', >>> +                    { >>> +                        description => "Optional associated storage.", >>> +                        optional => 1, >>> +                    }, >>> +                ), >> >> Is the idea to include the storage ID to represent such findings >> differently from other warnings/errors in the UI? > > The field is meant as an extension of the code field for machine > consumers, so a caller can tell which object a finding refers to without > parsing the message. The UI will most likely need it: The message we > return cannot always be translated AFAIK, so the UI has to build its own > string from the code and needs the storage ID separately to fill it in. > > Storage is currently the only such field, because it is the only one the > existing checks need. Further fields can be added the same way as more > checks arrive. Ack!