From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <f.ebner@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 DDFF56600B
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 9 Mar 2022 13:28:55 +0100 (CET)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id CCD651D334
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 9 Mar 2022 13:28:25 +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) server-digest SHA256)
(No client certificate requested)
by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS id 53F151D329
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 9 Mar 2022 13:28:25 +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 2C8A845880
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 9 Mar 2022 13:28:25 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <fa86170c-c146-d66e-e5c5-9184c56c003f@proxmox.com>
Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2022 13:28:24 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.6.2
Content-Language: en-US
To: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com, m.heiserer@proxmox.com
References: <20220304115218.665615-1-m.heiserer@proxmox.com>
From: Fabian Ebner <f.ebner@proxmox.com>
In-Reply-To: <20220304115218.665615-1-m.heiserer@proxmox.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0
AWL 0.123 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
T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE -0.01 -
Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH manager 1/3] GUI: Allow passing the node to
BackupConfig directly.
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, 09 Mar 2022 12:28:55 -0000
Am 04.03.22 um 12:52 schrieb Matthias Heiserer:
> Signed-off-by: Matthias Heiserer <m.heiserer@proxmox.com>
> ---
Some rationale for the change would be nice to have in the commit
message. Is there a scenario where me.pveSelNode is not the correct node?
> www/manager6/window/BackupConfig.js | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/www/manager6/window/BackupConfig.js b/www/manager6/window/BackupConfig.js
> index ca61b1e4..9609fe34 100644
> --- a/www/manager6/window/BackupConfig.js
> +++ b/www/manager6/window/BackupConfig.js
> @@ -24,7 +24,7 @@ Ext.define('PVE.window.BackupConfig', {
> throw "no volume specified";
> }
>
> - var nodename = me.pveSelNode.data.node;
> + var nodename = me.node ?? me.pveSelNode.data.node;
> if (!nodename) {
> throw "no node name specified";
> }