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) server-digest SHA256)
 (No client certificate requested)
 by lists.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 095D29350D
 for <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed,  4 Jan 2023 15:48:42 +0100 (CET)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id E4D1E2070C
 for <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed,  4 Jan 2023 15:48:41 +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
 for <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed,  4 Jan 2023 15:48:41 +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 3B14945065
 for <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed,  4 Jan 2023 15:48:41 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <06489e81-67f7-800c-29da-c374c3dd697a@proxmox.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2023 15:48:40 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:109.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/109.0
Content-Language: en-GB
To: Proxmox Backup Server development discussion
 <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>, Wolfgang Bumiller <w.bumiller@proxmox.com>,
 Lukas Wagner <l.wagner@proxmox.com>
References: <20230103142308.656240-1-l.wagner@proxmox.com>
 <20230103142308.656240-7-l.wagner@proxmox.com>
 <20230104133206.czwci777swboxggi@casey.proxmox.com>
From: Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com>
In-Reply-To: <20230104133206.czwci777swboxggi@casey.proxmox.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results:  0
 AWL 0.821 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           -1.708 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
Subject: Re: [pbs-devel] [PATCH proxmox-backup 06/17] auth: add LDAP realm
 authenticator
X-BeenThere: pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Proxmox Backup Server development discussion
 <pbs-devel.lists.proxmox.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/options/pbs-devel>, 
 <mailto:pbs-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.proxmox.com/pipermail/pbs-devel/>
List-Post: <mailto:pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
List-Help: <mailto:pbs-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pbs-devel>, 
 <mailto:pbs-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 04 Jan 2023 14:48:42 -0000

Am 04/01/2023 um 14:32 schrieb Wolfgang Bumiller:
>> +    fn store_password(&self, _username: &UsernameRef, _password: &str=
) -> Result<(), Error> {
>> +        // do not store password for LDAP users
>> +        Ok(())
> Actually this should fail.
> Otherwise this will make change-password API calls "succeed" without
> actually doing anything, but IMO it makes more sense to return a
> meaningful error there.
>=20
> (Perhaps even a http_bail!(NOT_IMPLEMENTED) though I'm not really sure
> how the GUI would deal with that =F0=9F=98=89 )
>=20

Seems reasonable and the web UI should handle it just fine (ExtJS alert
window containing the message)