From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <a.lauterer@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 4E8EB91FEC
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon, 13 Mar 2023 09:31:25 +0100 (CET)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 286C38818
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon, 13 Mar 2023 09:30:55 +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) server-digest SHA256)
(No client certificate requested)
by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon, 13 Mar 2023 09:30:49 +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 70BA34280E
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon, 13 Mar 2023 09:30:49 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <580d7569-5766-3378-c542-e165516ff1d9@proxmox.com>
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2023 09:30:44 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/102.8.0
To: Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com>,
Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
References: <20230310143657.1957557-1-a.lauterer@proxmox.com>
<37db403c-d472-d57d-2d52-2fa4c254a6a6@proxmox.com>
Content-Language: en-US
From: Aaron Lauterer <a.lauterer@proxmox.com>
In-Reply-To: <37db403c-d472-d57d-2d52-2fa4c254a6a6@proxmox.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0
AWL -0.041 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address
BAYES_00 -1.9 Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1%
KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment
NICE_REPLY_A -0.001 Looks like a legit reply (A)
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 manager] ui: PBSEdit: cleanup iframe for
paperkey
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: Mon, 13 Mar 2023 08:31:25 -0000
On 3/11/23 17:49, Thomas Lamprecht wrote:
> Am 10/03/2023 um 15:36 schrieb Aaron Lauterer:
>> Otherwise the iframe used to print the paperkey will remain even after
>> the encryption key window is closed.
>
> thanks for noticing!
>
>> Additionally clean before creating a new one as otherwise we might end
>> up with multiple iframes.
>
> having to do both seems wrong. Why not add a on close or on destroy listener
> on the window which handles that always correctly in a single place?
>
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Aaron Lauterer <a.lauterer@proxmox.com>
>> ---
>> www/manager6/storage/PBSEdit.js | 9 ++++++++-
>> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/www/manager6/storage/PBSEdit.js b/www/manager6/storage/PBSEdit.js
>> index 5b6b6bb8..dbc88668 100644
>> --- a/www/manager6/storage/PBSEdit.js
>> +++ b/www/manager6/storage/PBSEdit.js
[...]
>> @@ -181,6 +187,7 @@ ${prettifiedKey}
>>
>> printFrame.src = "data:text/html;base64," + btoa(html);
>> document.body.appendChild(printFrame);
>> + return printFrame;
>
> You could replace the whole patch with adding the following line here:
>
> me.on('destroy', () => document.body.removeChild(printFrame));
>
> can also apply directly with a Reported-by tag if you see nothing off with this,
> whatever you prefer?
Sure go ahead. Your approach is a lot cleaner. :)
>
>> },
>> });
>>
>