From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from gate001.proxmox.com (gate001.proxmox.com [IPv6:2a0f:8001:1:32::40]) by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8EA471FF0C1 for ; Wed, 26 Aug 2026 16:09:16 +0200 (CEST) Received: from gate001.proxmox.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by gate001.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 0CAE42133F; Wed, 26 Aug 2026 16:09:16 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2026 16:09:10 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [PATCH pve-manager v2 4/4] partially fix #7801: ui: hardware view: warn about problematic virtio versions To: Nicolas Frey , pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com References: <20260826074935.78437-1-n.frey@proxmox.com> <20260826074935.78437-5-n.frey@proxmox.com> Content-Language: en-US From: Fiona Ebner In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Bm-Milter-Handled: 55990f41-d878-4baa-be0a-ee34c49e34d2 X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp: 1787753342560 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.786 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_MED -2.3 Sender listed at https://www.dnswl.org/, medium 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: GYDCG37QVLITFU5RVUZG2DQYUPBQ6TEJ X-Message-ID-Hash: GYDCG37QVLITFU5RVUZG2DQYUPBQ6TEJ 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 26.08.26 um 3:37 PM schrieb Nicolas Frey: > On Wed Aug 26, 2026 at 1:44 PM CEST, Fiona Ebner wrote: >> Am 26.08.26 um 9:49 AM schrieb Nicolas Frey: >>> based on whether the ostype is windows or not. extends the >>> `editorFactory` to allow extraOptions to be a callback to allow for lazy >>> evaluation. this is needed as 'ostype' is not yet instantiated when >>> eagerly evaluating. >>> >>> Fixes: https://bugzilla.proxmox.com/show_bug.cgi?id=7801 >>> Signed-off-by: Nicolas Frey >>> --- >>> changes since v1: >>> * actually lazily evaluate the ostype by putting it in >>> the function body that gets returned (i.e. the factory) >>> * add missing warnVirtio to commonOpts >>> >>> www/manager6/qemu/HardwareView.js | 8 +++++--- >>> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/www/manager6/qemu/HardwareView.js b/www/manager6/qemu/HardwareView.js >>> index e6c02299..9e900746 100644 >>> --- a/www/manager6/qemu/HardwareView.js >>> +++ b/www/manager6/qemu/HardwareView.js >>> @@ -436,6 +436,7 @@ Ext.define('PVE.qemu.HardwareView', { >>> listeners: { >>> destroy: () => me.reload(), >>> }, >>> + warnVirtio: PVE.Utils.is_windows(me.getObjectValue('ostype')), >> >> Seems a bit out of place in the commonOpts. Can't we do this more >> locally in the definition below? Might need splitting out like the >> efidisk_menuitem? >> > > doesn't efidisk_menuitem just apply to the "Add" dropdown menu? Hmm, right. > the commonOpts > are IMO not ideal, but there is no option to pass in any additional options: > > ``` > if (Ext.isString(editor)) { > Ext.create(editor, commonOpts); > } > ``` > > where the `CDEdit` editor is determined (in `run_editor`) like so: > > ``` > if (rowdef.isOnStorageBus) { > let value = me.getObjectValue(rec.data.key, '', true); > if (isCloudInitKey(value)) { > return; > } else if (value.match(/media=cdrom/)) { > editor = 'PVE.qemu.CDEdit'; Can we define an instance with the extra option up-front and then assign that one instead of the string here? > } else if (!diskCap) { > return; > } > } > ``` > > I'd have to rewrite a bunch of stuff here to allow for that and I'm not > sure it's worth the hassle here. what do you think? > >>> }; >>> >>> if (Ext.isString(editor)) { >>> @@ -805,7 +806,6 @@ Ext.define('PVE.qemu.HardwareView', { >>> }; >>> >>> let editorFactory = (classPath, extraOptions) => { >>> - extraOptions = extraOptions || {}; >>> return () => >>> Ext.create(`PVE.qemu.${classPath}`, { >>> autoShow: true, >>> @@ -816,7 +816,7 @@ Ext.define('PVE.qemu.HardwareView', { >>> }, >>> isAdd: true, >>> isCreate: true, >>> - ...extraOptions, >>> + ...(Ext.isFunction(extraOptions) ? extraOptions() : extraOptions || {}), >> >> This is rather hacky too. >> > > do you mean the way it's written with a ternary or generally the lazy evaluation? > I meant the overloading of the parameter to either be a dictionary or a function. But to be fair, it is JavaScript, so nothing unheard of. >>> }); >>> }; >>> >>> @@ -847,7 +847,9 @@ Ext.define('PVE.qemu.HardwareView', { >>> text: gettext('CD/DVD Drive'), >>> iconCls: 'pve-itype-icon-cdrom', >>> disabled: !caps.vms['VM.Config.CDROM'], >>> - handler: editorFactory('CDEdit'), >>> + handler: editorFactory('CDEdit', () => ({ >>> + warnVirtio: PVE.Utils.is_windows(me.getObjectValue('ostype')), >>> + })), >>> }, >>> { >>> text: gettext('Network Device'), >>> -- >>> 2.47.3 >>> >>> >>>