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 7D4139078
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 8 Mar 2023 07:34:49 +0100 (CET)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 65F461C37C
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 8 Mar 2023 07:34:49 +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>; Wed, 8 Mar 2023 07:34:48 +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 3B4F942135
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 8 Mar 2023 07:34:48 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <e7f3d3b3-421f-2332-9adf-a43d16578b93@proxmox.com>
Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2023 07:34:47 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:111.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/111.0
Content-Language: de-AT, en-GB
From: Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com>
To: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>,
Max Carrara <m.carrara@proxmox.com>
Reply-To: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
References: <20230303175705.214121-1-m.carrara@proxmox.com>
<20230303175705.214121-5-m.carrara@proxmox.com>
<d6ac5805-2029-73ea-f15f-5c2a10b426fc@proxmox.com>
In-Reply-To: <d6ac5805-2029-73ea-f15f-5c2a10b426fc@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. [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: Wed, 08 Mar 2023 06:34:49 -0000
Am 07/03/2023 um 19:33 schrieb Thomas Lamprecht:
>> 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]
>
Actually I was mistaken here (thanks Dominik for the reminder), here it indeed is
the getter for the processed raw value even if there's a boolean config for
submitValue - meh. But I'd still go for the inputpanel way in two patches, as that
cleans the whole thing up nicer and avoid depending on a bit more internal details,
making it more explicit.
> [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
>