From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <f.ebner@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 44E50962E1
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon, 15 Apr 2024 14:13:29 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 1CDF591C5
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon, 15 Apr 2024 14:12:59 +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>; Mon, 15 Apr 2024 14:12:58 +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 5A6C1448ED
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon, 15 Apr 2024 14:12:58 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <650d700c-2fad-4a37-9010-e0cc53aca05d@proxmox.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2024 14:12:57 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
To: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>,
Filip Schauer <f.schauer@proxmox.com>
References: <20240131150317.128465-1-f.schauer@proxmox.com>
<20240131150317.128465-3-f.schauer@proxmox.com>
Content-Language: en-US
From: Fiona Ebner <f.ebner@proxmox.com>
In-Reply-To: <20240131150317.128465-3-f.schauer@proxmox.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0
AWL -0.071 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: Mon, 15 Apr 2024 12:13:29 -0000
Am 31.01.24 um 16:03 schrieb Filip Schauer:
> diff --git a/www/manager6/lxc/DeviceEdit.js b/www/manager6/lxc/DeviceEdit.js
> new file mode 100644
> index 00000000..445f8607
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/www/manager6/lxc/DeviceEdit.js
> @@ -0,0 +1,190 @@
> +Ext.define('PVE.lxc.DeviceInputPanel', {
> + extend: 'Proxmox.panel.InputPanel',
> +
> + autoComplete: false,
> +
> + controller: {
> + xclass: 'Ext.app.ViewController',
> + init: function(view) {
> + let me = this;
> + let vm = this.getViewModel();
> + vm.set('confid', view.confid);
Nit: Is the confid in the viewModel (and therefore the whole view model)
only used for the isCreate formula? That could also be directly passed
in and bound via cbind instead.
> + },
> + },
> +
> + viewModel: {
> + data: {
> + confid: '',
> + },
> +
> + formulas: {
> + isCreate: function(get) {
> + return !get('confid');
> + },
> + },
> + },
> +
> + setVMConfig: function(vmconfig) {
> + let me = this;
> + me.vmconfig = vmconfig;
> +
> + if (!me.confid) {
Nit: Should this be guarded by isCreate instead? If for whatever reason
setVMConfig() would be called a second time with a different config (not
currently happenening AFAICT), I suppose it would make sense to pick the
first free slot based on the new config again?
> + PVE.Utils.forEachLxcDev((i) => {
> + let name = "dev" + i.toString();
> + if (!Ext.isDefined(vmconfig[name])) {
> + me.confid = name;
> + me.down('field[name=devid]').setValue(i);
> + return false;
> + }
> + return undefined;
> + });
> + }
> + },
> +
(...)
> +
> + 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.
> + return true;
> + }
> +
> + return "Access mode has to be an octal number";
> + },
> + },
> + ],
> +});
> +
With that said:
Reviewed-by: Fiona Ebner <f.ebner@proxmox.com>