From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: 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 ; 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 ; 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 ; 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 ; 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 , Proxmox VE development discussion References: <20230310143657.1957557-1-a.lauterer@proxmox.com> <37db403c-d472-d57d-2d52-2fa4c254a6a6@proxmox.com> Content-Language: en-US From: Aaron Lauterer 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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-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 >> --- >> 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. :) > >> }, >> }); >> >