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 7F5981FF13A for ; Wed, 15 Apr 2026 10:44:52 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 3A5DF8D51; Wed, 15 Apr 2026 10:44:52 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <98f893be-871c-4a46-9b06-3ee17978131d@proxmox.com> Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2026 10:44:17 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [PATCH pve-storage 7/7] api: add /nodes//storage//instance-id route To: Lukas Wagner , pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com, pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com References: <20260413121057.371772-1-l.wagner@proxmox.com> <20260413121057.371772-8-l.wagner@proxmox.com> <9a4d051a-58a5-445f-a127-c11706d93194@proxmox.com> Content-Language: en-US, de-DE From: Christian Ebner In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Bm-Milter-Handled: 55990f41-d878-4baa-be0a-ee34c49e34d2 X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp: 1776242580650 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.021 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 POISEN_SPAM_PILL_3 0.1 random spam to be learned in bayes 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: FTXY4HC7FQVQZK533FMBEDDGUXVS7ZAS X-Message-ID-Hash: FTXY4HC7FQVQZK533FMBEDDGUXVS7ZAS X-MailFrom: c.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 Backup Server development discussion List-Help: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: On 4/15/26 10:40 AM, Lukas Wagner wrote: > On Tue Apr 14, 2026 at 4:38 PM CEST, Christian Ebner wrote: >> On 4/13/26 2:11 PM, Lukas Wagner wrote: >>> This API allows us to retrieve the instance ID of PBS storages. This is >>> useful to establish a mapping between PBS storage and PBS remotes in >>> PDM. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Lukas Wagner >>> --- >>> >>> Notes: >>> Maybe we want to make this more general and just call it /id or >>> something, in case we want to use a similar mechanism for other storage >>> types as well? >>> >>> Also could make sense to cache the response. >>> >>> src/PVE/API2/Storage/Status.pm | 50 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++- >>> 1 file changed, 49 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/src/PVE/API2/Storage/Status.pm b/src/PVE/API2/Storage/Status.pm >>> index 8225c3a..52aa673 100644 >>> --- a/src/PVE/API2/Storage/Status.pm >>> +++ b/src/PVE/API2/Storage/Status.pm >>> @@ -14,7 +14,7 @@ use PVE::JSONSchema qw(get_standard_option); >>> use PVE::RESTHandler; >>> use PVE::RPCEnvironment; >>> use PVE::RRD; >>> -use PVE::Tools qw(run_command); >>> +use PVE::Tools qw(run_command extract_param); >>> >>> use PVE::API2::Storage::Content; >>> use PVE::API2::Storage::FileRestore; >>> @@ -308,6 +308,7 @@ __PACKAGE__->register_method({ >>> { subdir => 'download-url' }, >>> { subdir => 'file-restore' }, >>> { subdir => 'import-metadata' }, >>> + { subdir => 'instance-id' }, >>> { subdir => 'oci-registry-pull' }, >>> { subdir => 'prunebackups' }, >>> { subdir => 'rrd' }, >>> @@ -1118,4 +1119,51 @@ __PACKAGE__->register_method({ >>> }, >>> }); >>> >>> +__PACKAGE__->register_method({ >>> + name => 'instance_id', >>> + path => '{storage}/instance-id', >>> + method => 'GET', >>> + description => "Return unique storage instance ID (PBS only)", >>> + permissions => { >>> + check => ['perm', '/storage/{storage}', ['Datastore.Audit']], >>> + }, >>> + protected => 1, >>> + proxyto => 'node', >>> + parameters => { >>> + additionalProperties => 0, >>> + properties => { >>> + node => get_standard_option('pve-node'), >>> + storage => get_standard_option('pve-storage-id'), >>> + }, >>> + }, >>> + returns => { >>> + type => "object", >>> + properties => { >>> + 'instance-id' => { >>> + type => 'string', >>> + description => 'Unique instance ID', >>> + }, > > With the changes described below, I'd > - rename the property to 'pbs-instance-id' > - make it optional (as a preparation for other storages that could > have some 'identity info' that would be stored in a different key) > >>> + }, >>> + }, >>> + code => sub { >>> + my ($param) = @_; >>> + >>> + my $rpcenv = PVE::RPCEnvironment::get(); >>> + my $user = $rpcenv->get_user(); >>> + >>> + my $storeid = extract_param($param, 'storage'); >>> + >>> + my $cfg = PVE::Storage::config(); >>> + my $scfg = PVE::Storage::storage_config($cfg, $storeid); >>> + >>> + raise_param_exc({ 'storage' => "Only PBS storages supported." }) >>> + if $scfg->{type} ne 'pbs'; >>> + >>> + my $client = PVE::PBSClient->new($scfg, $storeid); >>> + my $ret = $client->get_instance_id(); >> >> nit: same as on previous patches, the client part should be called >> get_pbs_instance_id() to reflect that this stems from the server. >> >> I do agree however that this API endpoint name for PVE should be chosen >> as generic as possible for better future extensibility. >> > > I think I'm going to rename the API path to `identity`, as this seems to > be generic enough to be useful for other storages as well. Maybe the > method in PBSClient could then be called `get_server_identity`? > > What do you think? Yes, this definitely is a more fitting name with less potential for confusion on the client side.