From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <f.weber@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 79422916DC
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Thu, 4 Apr 2024 12:10:44 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 513C236B07
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Thu, 4 Apr 2024 12:10:14 +0200 (CEST)
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))
(No client certificate requested)
by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Thu, 4 Apr 2024 12:10:13 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
by proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 5EA6F4523C
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Thu, 4 Apr 2024 12:10:13 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <147ee23c-97ae-4cc5-8c1f-ffc2ad4d6773@proxmox.com>
Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2024 12:10:12 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
To: Stefan Sterz <s.sterz@proxmox.com>,
Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
References: <20240403091010.11544-1-f.weber@proxmox.com>
<20240403091010.11544-4-f.weber@proxmox.com>
<D0B6YC1ETEX7.18Y1P4WQZXBCR@proxmox.com>
<a61ff6e8-c79c-4539-a2b6-acacc79c6440@proxmox.com>
<D0B89ODDN2EF.32UYX8ZQQZHU5@proxmox.com>
Content-Language: en-US
From: Friedrich Weber <f.weber@proxmox.com>
In-Reply-To: <D0B89ODDN2EF.32UYX8ZQQZHU5@proxmox.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0
AWL -0.073 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: [pve-devel] [PATCH widget-toolkit 3/3] window: edit: avoid
shared object for extra request params
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: Thu, 04 Apr 2024 10:10:44 -0000
On 04/04/2024 11:23, Stefan Sterz wrote:
> -- >8 snip 8< --
>>>
>>> i did a quick an dirty test and using a constructor like this seems to
>>> rule out this class of bug completelly:
>>>
>>> ```js
>>> constructor: function(conf) {
>>> let me = this;
>>> me.extraRequestParams = {};
>>> me.initConfig(conf);
>>> me.callParent();
>>> },
>>> ```
>>>
>>> basically it configures the edit window as usual, but overwrites the
>>> `extraRequestParams` object for each instance with a new empty object.
>>> so there are no more shared objects :) could you check whether that also
>>> fixes the other instances?
>>>
>>> [1]: https://docs-devel.sencha.com/extjs/7.0.0/classic/Ext.window.Window.html#method-constructor
>>
>> Nifty, didn't think about a constructor solution. Such a general
>> solution would be way more elegant, thanks for suggesting it!
>>
>> However, this particular constructor seems to break the pattern of
>> defining `extraRequestParams` in the subclass properties, as done by
>> `PVE.Pool.AddVM` [1]. With the constructor above, the API request done
>> by `AddVM` seems to be missing the `allow-move` parameter.
>>
>> Looks like once `PVE.Pool.AddVM` is instantiated and the constructor is
>> called, `extraRequestParams` with `allow-move` is only defined in
>> `me.__proto__`, so `me.extraRequestParams = {}` essentially shadows it
>> with an empty object, losing the `allow-move`.
>>
>
> not sure what you mean by that, if an `PVE.Pool.AddVM` is instantiated,
> the `extraRequestParams` is already set, so it isn't just in `__proto__`
> for me. but yeah, the problem is correct as `me.extraRequestParams = {}`
> overwrites the field.
I agree it doesn't matter here, but just for completeness, I meant that
if I set a breakpoint before line 2, so before the overwrite:
```js
constructor: function(conf) {
let me = this;
=> me.extraRequestParams = {};
me.initConfig(conf);
me.callParent();
},
```
... `extraRequestParams` is not a property of `me`, but inherited from
its prototype:
```
>> me.extraRequestParams
Object { "allow-move": 1 }
>> "extraRequestParams" in me
true
>> Object.hasOwn(me, "extraRequestParams")
false
```
Doesn't make a difference for the overwrite, though.
>> Do you have an idea how to fix this? Maybe making a copy of
>> `extraRequestParams` would work (I suppose the overhead of creating a
>> new object for all edit window (subclass) instances is negligible).
>>
>> [1]
>> https://git.proxmox.com/?p=pve-manager.git;a=blob;f=www/manager6/grid/PoolMembers.js;h=75f20cab;hb=4b06efb5#l9
>
> this worked for me, can you confirm that this also does what it should
> for you?
>
> ```js
> extraRequestParams: undefined,
>
> constructor: function(conf) {
> let me = this;
> if (!me.extraRequestParams) {
> me.extraRequestParams = {};
> }
> me.initConfig(conf);
> me.callParent();
> },
> ```
It works in the sense that it fixes the bug mentioned in my patch 1/3,
and fixes the lost `allow-move` issue from the previous constructor. But
with this constructor, all instances of `AddVM` share the same
`extraRequestParams` (the body of the `if` never gets executed for
`AddVM` instances), which is the condition that my patch 2/3 tries to
avoid (even though it is currently not buggy).
Maybe we could do:
```js
extraRequestParams: {},
constructor: function(conf) {
let me = this;
me.extraRequestParams = Ext.clone(me.extraRequestParams);
me.initConfig(conf);
me.callParent();
},
```
... which, if I'm not missing anything, *should* cover everything (with
the cost of allocating unnecessary empty objects)?