From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <f.schauer@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 90531969AE
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Tue, 16 Apr 2024 13:48:54 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 7905318CDB
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Tue, 16 Apr 2024 13:48:54 +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) server-digest SHA256)
 (No client certificate requested)
 by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Tue, 16 Apr 2024 13:48:53 +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 9981D45651
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Tue, 16 Apr 2024 13:48:53 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <3d8a7b91-0478-42ae-969a-55f5502289df@proxmox.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2024 13:48:36 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
To: Fiona Ebner <f.ebner@proxmox.com>,
 Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
References: <20240131150317.128465-1-f.schauer@proxmox.com>
 <20240131150317.128465-3-f.schauer@proxmox.com>
 <650d700c-2fad-4a37-9010-e0cc53aca05d@proxmox.com>
From: Filip Schauer <f.schauer@proxmox.com>
In-Reply-To: <650d700c-2fad-4a37-9010-e0cc53aca05d@proxmox.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results:  0
 AWL -0.074 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 v3 manager 2/2] ui: lxc: add edit window for
 device passthrough
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: Tue, 16 Apr 2024 11:48:54 -0000

On 15/04/2024 14:12, Fiona Ebner wrote:
>> +
>> +    advancedColumn2: [
>> +	{
>> +	    xtype: 'textfield',
>> +	    name: 'mode',
>> +	    editable: true,
>> +	    fieldLabel: gettext('Access Mode'),
>> +	    emptyText: '0660',
>> +	    labelAlign: 'right',
>> +	    validator: function(value) {
>> +		if (/^0[0-7]{3}$|^$/i.test(value)) {
> Should we require the leading zero here? Many users will be familiar
> with chown, where it is not required.

We already require the access mode to have a leading zero in
pve-container.