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 720228F28
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Tue,  7 Mar 2023 19:33:38 +0100 (CET)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 4E7BF1814A
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Tue,  7 Mar 2023 19:33:38 +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
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Tue,  7 Mar 2023 19:33:36 +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 30086416E0
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Tue,  7 Mar 2023 19:33:36 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <d6ac5805-2029-73ea-f15f-5c2a10b426fc@proxmox.com>
Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2023 19:33:34 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:111.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/111.0
Content-Language: en-GB, de-AT
To: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>,
 Max Carrara <m.carrara@proxmox.com>
References: <20230303175705.214121-1-m.carrara@proxmox.com>
 <20230303175705.214121-5-m.carrara@proxmox.com>
From: Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com>
In-Reply-To: <20230303175705.214121-5-m.carrara@proxmox.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results:  0
 AWL -0.050 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
 NICE_REPLY_A           -0.001 Looks like a legit reply (A)
 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. [certificates.pm, sencha.com]
Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH v2 manager 2/2] ui: cert upload: fix private
 key field sending empty string
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, 07 Mar 2023 18:33:38 -0000

Am 03/03/2023 um 18:57 schrieb Max Carrara:
> The private key's field is now excluded from the upload form's
> JSON data if it's considered empty by Ext.js.

nit: Ext JS

> 
> Prior to this change, the form still sent an empty string if no
> private key was provided by the user, even though the private key's
> field is marked as optional in `pve-manager/PVE/API2/Certificates.pm`,

nit: I'd avoid file system paths, they're an internal detail here, if use the
api path or just in "... optional in the upload cert API endpoint"

> causing the JSONSchema validation to fail.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Max Carrara <m.carrara@proxmox.com>
> ---
>  www/manager6/node/Certificates.js | 3 +++
>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/www/manager6/node/Certificates.js b/www/manager6/node/Certificates.js
> index 34013b44..84fc12ff 100644
> --- a/www/manager6/node/Certificates.js
> +++ b/www/manager6/node/Certificates.js
> @@ -173,6 +173,9 @@ Ext.define('PVE.node.CertUpload', {
>  	    emptyText: gettext('No change'),
>  	    name: 'key',
>  	    xtype: 'textarea',
> +	    getSubmitValue: function() {
> +		return this.getValue() || null;
> +	    },

This works by luck, submitData is a boolean config for the textarea [0], and
getSubmitValue has nothing to do with the actual value, but just is the getter
for the submitValue bool, which the private actual getSubmitData fn checks [1]

[0]: https://docs.sencha.com/extjs/7.0.0/classic/Ext.form.field.TextArea.html#cfg-submitValue
[1]: https://docs.sencha.com/extjs/7.0.0/classic/src/Base.js-2.html#Ext.form.field.Base-method-getSubmitData

So if, then this would need to return boolean false not null to avoid being
confusing - but there's an alternative: wrap this in a inputpanel and use it's
onGetValues helper to filter this out, as that allows to also set the hard-coded
`force` and `reload` params directly, we could drop the hidden fields too, with
also dropping the now finally visible (but ugly) 'hr' autoEl we actually would
need fewer lines.

I.e., something like:

items: {
    xtype: 'inputpanel',
    onGetValues: function(values) {
        values.restart = 1;
        values.force = 1;
        if (!values.key) {
            delete values.key;
        }
        return values;
    },
    items: [
        ....

>  	},
>  	{
>  	    xtype: 'filebutton',