[pdm-devel] [PATCH datacenter-manager 0/1] ui: remote wizard: validate remote ID

[pdm-devel] [PATCH datacenter-manager 0/1] ui: remote wizard: validate remote ID

[Fiona Ebner]

As reported in the community forum [0], the remote ID field in the
remote wizard was not validated. When using an inavlid remote ID, only
the backend would report an error upon submission. Add validation to
the 'Remote ID' field to catch this early.

[0]: https://forum.proxmox.com/threads/171742/post-808943

proxmox-datacenter-manager:

Fiona Ebner (1):
  ui: remote wizard: validate remote ID

 ui/src/remotes/wizard_page_info.rs | 12 +++++++++---
 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)


Summary over all repositories:
  1 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

-- 
Generated by git-murpp 0.5.0


_______________________________________________
pdm-devel mailing list
pdm-devel@lists.proxmox.com
https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pdm-devel

[pdm-devel] [PATCH datacenter-manager 1/1] ui: remote wizard: validate remote ID

[Fiona Ebner]

As reported in the community forum [0], the remote ID field in the
remote wizard was not validated. When using an inavlid remote ID, only
the backend would report an error upon submission. Add validation to
the 'Remote ID' field to catch this early.

[0]: https://forum.proxmox.com/threads/171742/post-808943

Signed-off-by: Fiona Ebner <f.ebner@proxmox.com>
---
 ui/src/remotes/wizard_page_info.rs | 12 +++++++++---
 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/ui/src/remotes/wizard_page_info.rs b/ui/src/remotes/wizard_page_info.rs
index 7fffdd1..8bcd1b3 100644
--- a/ui/src/remotes/wizard_page_info.rs
+++ b/ui/src/remotes/wizard_page_info.rs
@@ -6,7 +6,7 @@ use serde::{Deserialize, Serialize};
 use yew::virtual_dom::{Key, VComp, VNode};
 
 use proxmox_schema::property_string::PropertyString;
-use proxmox_yew_comp::WizardPageRenderInfo;
+use proxmox_yew_comp::{SchemaValidation, WizardPageRenderInfo};
 use pwt::{
     css::{self, FlexFit},
     prelude::*,
@@ -18,7 +18,7 @@ use pwt::{
     AsyncPool,
 };
 
-use pdm_api_types::remotes::{NodeUrl, Remote, RemoteType};
+use pdm_api_types::remotes::{NodeUrl, Remote, RemoteType, REMOTE_ID_SCHEMA};
 
 use pwt_macros::builder;
 
@@ -292,7 +292,13 @@ impl Component for PdmWizardPageInfo {
         let input_panel = InputPanel::new()
             .class(FlexFit)
             .padding(4)
-            .with_field(tr!("Remote ID"), Field::new().name("id").required(true))
+            .with_field(
+                tr!("Remote ID"),
+                Field::new()
+                    .name("id")
+                    .required(true)
+                    .schema(&REMOTE_ID_SCHEMA),
+            )
             .with_custom_child(
                 RadioButton::new("login")
                     .key("login-mode-login")
-- 
2.47.3



_______________________________________________
pdm-devel mailing list
pdm-devel@lists.proxmox.com
https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pdm-devel

[pdm-devel] applied: [PATCH datacenter-manager 1/1] ui: remote wizard: validate remote ID

[Thomas Lamprecht]

On Wed, 29 Oct 2025 14:46:27 +0100, Fiona Ebner wrote:
> As reported in the community forum [0], the remote ID field in the
> remote wizard was not validated. When using an inavlid remote ID, only
> the backend would report an error upon submission. Add validation to
> the 'Remote ID' field to catch this early.
> 
> [0]: https://forum.proxmox.com/threads/171742/post-808943
> 
> [...]

Applied, thanks!

Tiny nit, but as I noticed it more than a few times now already:
Personally I'm not a big fan of cover-letters for simple single-patch
submissions, just adds noise. Basically I'd prefer:

- single commit -> single patch and no cover letter, it's basically just a
  `git send-email -1` call anyway.
- multiple commits -> always a cover letter.

But if I'd have to chose between either always cover-letter or never I'd go for
always, so it's fine for me, just find it unnecessary and cost my slightly more
time to read a extra post to see if there is anything that special that
warrants a cover-letter for "just" a single patch.

[1/1] ui: remote wizard: validate remote ID
      commit: 0e013085a1d6ed8b70cdb16f4d51af4f6b2f301f


_______________________________________________
pdm-devel mailing list
pdm-devel@lists.proxmox.com
https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pdm-devel

Re: [pdm-devel] applied: [PATCH datacenter-manager 1/1] ui: remote wizard: validate remote ID

[Fiona Ebner]

Am 29.10.25 um 3:13 PM schrieb Thomas Lamprecht:
> On Wed, 29 Oct 2025 14:46:27 +0100, Fiona Ebner wrote:
> Tiny nit, but as I noticed it more than a few times now already:
> Personally I'm not a big fan of cover-letters for simple single-patch
> submissions, just adds noise. Basically I'd prefer:
> 
> - single commit -> single patch and no cover letter, it's basically just a
>   `git send-email -1` call anyway.
> - multiple commits -> always a cover letter.
> 
> But if I'd have to chose between either always cover-letter or never I'd go for
> always, so it's fine for me, just find it unnecessary and cost my slightly more
> time to read a extra post to see if there is anything that special that
> warrants a cover-letter for "just" a single patch.

Okay, sorry. I recently switched to always using cover letters as part
of my workflow (since I often don't know if something will stay a single
patch or a single repo for that matter). But I'll switch back to sending
only a stand-alone patch if it turned out to be that.


_______________________________________________
pdm-devel mailing list
pdm-devel@lists.proxmox.com
https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pdm-devel

Re: [pdm-devel] applied: [PATCH datacenter-manager 1/1] ui: remote wizard: validate remote ID

[Thomas Lamprecht]

Am 29.10.25 um 15:20 schrieb Fiona Ebner:
> Am 29.10.25 um 3:13 PM schrieb Thomas Lamprecht:
>> On Wed, 29 Oct 2025 14:46:27 +0100, Fiona Ebner wrote:
>> Tiny nit, but as I noticed it more than a few times now already:
>> Personally I'm not a big fan of cover-letters for simple single-patch
>> submissions, just adds noise. Basically I'd prefer:
>>
>> - single commit -> single patch and no cover letter, it's basically just a
>>   `git send-email -1` call anyway.
>> - multiple commits -> always a cover letter.
>>
>> But if I'd have to chose between either always cover-letter or never I'd go for
>> always, so it's fine for me, just find it unnecessary and cost my slightly more
>> time to read a extra post to see if there is anything that special that
>> warrants a cover-letter for "just" a single patch.
> 
> Okay, sorry. I recently switched to always using cover letters as part
> of my workflow (since I often don't know if something will stay a single
> patch or a single repo for that matter). But I'll switch back to sending
> only a stand-alone patch if it turned out to be that.

Nothing big, so definitively no worries, and if it helps you it has at
least a benefit for somebody, and with that it's fine for me.
I mostly want to avoid that others always send cover letters for single
patches just because they think it's required.


_______________________________________________
pdm-devel mailing list
pdm-devel@lists.proxmox.com
https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pdm-devel