From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [IPv6:2a01:7e0:0:424::9]) by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CC7101FF13E for ; Fri, 17 Apr 2026 10:33:51 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id ACD3519AAE; Fri, 17 Apr 2026 10:33:51 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2026 10:33:48 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [PATCH cluster 3/5] api: add token timeout and warning level to cluster join info To: =?UTF-8?Q?Michael_K=C3=B6ppl?= , pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com References: <20260330144321.321072-1-m.koeppl@proxmox.com> <20260330144321.321072-4-m.koeppl@proxmox.com> Content-Language: en-US From: Friedrich Weber In-Reply-To: <20260330144321.321072-4-m.koeppl@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: 1776414749349 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.013 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address BAYES_00 -1.9 Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% DMARC_MISSING 0.1 Missing DMARC policy 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 Message-ID-Hash: 3C7S36YZS622QKEDUXRRZAIRW6DY6OKO X-Message-ID-Hash: 3C7S36YZS622QKEDUXRRZAIRW6DY6OKO X-MailFrom: f.weber@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: On 30/03/2026 16:46, Michael Köppl wrote: > The token timeout in seconds and the warning level provide additional > information for users regarding the expected token timeout in seconds > after adding an additional node and whether changing the token > coefficient is recommended. > > Signed-off-by: Michael Köppl > --- > I'm not quite sure regarding this one, so please feel free to provide > feedback here. I decided against simply returning the same warning > message as in pvecm here because I wanted to avoid returning a warning > message with a URL from the API. However, I still wanted to provide > information regarding the high token timeout to users who call the API > directly. These 2 fields give enough flexibility for the web UI while > still returning documented properties. Duplicating the error messages in backend and frontend doesn't seem that nice indeed, but it does have the benefit that the frontend messages are translatable, right? I think that's desirable, so if there is no better way to achieve this, IMO the duplication seems worth it.