From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <d.csapak@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 DE862BA1CF
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Tue, 19 Mar 2024 09:09:46 +0100 (CET)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id B2E321B3D6
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Tue, 19 Mar 2024 09:09:16 +0100 (CET)
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>; Tue, 19 Mar 2024 09:09:12 +0100 (CET)
Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
 by proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 52F0D466A8;
 Tue, 19 Mar 2024 09:09:12 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <4196395c-95cc-4a8d-9d2b-1049b233d41a@proxmox.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2024 09:09:11 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Beta
From: Dominik Csapak <d.csapak@proxmox.com>
To: Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com>,
 Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
Reply-To: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
References: <20240318134454.2908174-1-d.csapak@proxmox.com>
 <e62ffbd5-4846-4ec6-85c2-4ba63d990e0b@proxmox.com>
 <ce64a586-31c9-4786-b507-3344bcecd00f@proxmox.com>
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <ce64a586-31c9-4786-b507-3344bcecd00f@proxmox.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results:  0
 AWL 0.019 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
 T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE    -0.01 -
Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [RFC PATCH widget-toolkit] utils: API2Request:
 defer masking after layout
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, 19 Mar 2024 08:09:46 -0000


>>> sending as RFC because i'm unsure if we accidentally broke the masking
>>> somewhere along the way. AFAICS from the current code, this never could have
>>> worked properly? anyway, i'll be looking into that sometimes soon, and
>>> this patch should be correct anyway...
>>
>> it surely did sometimes in the past, maybe ExtJS 7?
> 
> 
> yeah maybe, I'll see if i can find out when it still worked and why..
> could also be general browser behavior change though
> 

so tested back to pve 5 and the behaviour is still the same on chrome/firefox.
my guess is simply either changed browser behaviour or we missed that for much
longer than i thought...