From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [212.224.123.68]) by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A3C9B1FF17C for ; Wed, 23 Jul 2025 17:17:10 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 12B5416FAD; Wed, 23 Jul 2025 17:18:30 +0200 (CEST) Mime-Version: 1.0 Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2025 17:18:27 +0200 Message-Id: To: "Thomas Lamprecht" X-Mailer: aerc 0.20.0 References: <20250710135010.305861-1-s.sterz@proxmox.com> <20250710135010.305861-2-s.sterz@proxmox.com> <29a30c55-c367-4150-90d3-3477065e50f2@proxmox.com> <59a4e51b-5459-462b-b26c-6c70649a0ad3@proxmox.com> In-Reply-To: <59a4e51b-5459-462b-b26c-6c70649a0ad3@proxmox.com> From: "Shannon Sterz" X-Bm-Milter-Handled: 55990f41-d878-4baa-be0a-ee34c49e34d2 X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp: 1753283897313 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.022 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 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 1/1] auth-api: include meta information required by extjs in api endpoints X-BeenThere: pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox Backup Server development discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Reply-To: Proxmox Backup Server development discussion Cc: Proxmox Backup Server development discussion Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: pbs-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com Sender: "pbs-devel" On Tue Jul 22, 2025 at 10:21 PM CEST, Thomas Lamprecht wrote: > Am 16.07.25 um 10:17 schrieb Shannon Sterz: >> On Wed Jul 16, 2025 at 12:40 AM CEST, Thomas Lamprecht wrote: >>> Am 10.07.25 um 15:50 schrieb Shannon Sterz: >>>> otherwise extjs will assume the requests failed even though they were >>>> successful. >>> >>> Potentially dumb question, but is this then only returning that for the >>> extjs formatter or also for the json one? >> >> sadly this impacts all formaters as this type of api handler returns a >> `Response` right away instead of a passing it through a formater like >> other handler types. the problem with the other handler types is, that >> they don't let you access the requests header values as easily. >> >> the nicest way to resolve this would probably be to pass down the >> formater in `handle_api_request` [1] to endpoints that return an >> `ApiResponseFuture`. so that they can handle the formatting themselves >> (some api endpoints like those that download raw text files etc. >> probably won't need the formater). > > It might be better to expose through the (RPC/REST) environment in the > mid term, could be useful for other stuff too. Or alternatively expose > a structured way to pass back a cookie if the methods signals support > in the schema. > > But either way: we can go this route for now, while looking at this more > closely down the line, when it either causes problems (IMO unlikely) or > when we need something similar for another reason anyway and can clean > this up here then too. > > Anyway, if you get someone to give this a spin and at least a T-b here, > ideally a review too, I'd be still open to take this in. alright, mira and maximiliano both tested the series and found mostly cosmetic issues. i adopted them into a v2 and kept their T-b lines since nothing really changed except for an additional `tracing::debug!` statement. let me know if there is something else i can do. _______________________________________________ pbs-devel mailing list pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pbs-devel