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 A19C373D1B for ; Fri, 16 Apr 2021 17:40:02 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 9196727705 for ; Fri, 16 Apr 2021 17:39:32 +0200 (CEST) Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (proxmox-new.maurer-it.com [212.186.127.180]) (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 id 2804F276F5 for ; Fri, 16 Apr 2021 17:39:28 +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 DE86445AE1 for ; Fri, 16 Apr 2021 17:39:27 +0200 (CEST) To: Thomas Lamprecht , Proxmox VE development discussion References: <20210416141026.19499-1-a.lauterer@proxmox.com> <90633710-e22f-66dc-2e77-9e8d6979a4ec@proxmox.com> From: Aaron Lauterer Message-ID: <70e563f9-660f-8e70-f366-a73e3c55837f@proxmox.com> Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2021 17:39:27 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.9.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <90633710-e22f-66dc-2e77-9e8d6979a4ec@proxmox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL -0.010 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address 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) RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED -2.3 Sender listed at https://www.dnswl.org/, medium trust 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: RBDStorage: add field for RBD namespace 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: Fri, 16 Apr 2021 15:40:02 -0000 Thx for the feedback and yep, I forgot to run the linter... On 4/16/21 4:56 PM, Thomas Lamprecht wrote: > On 16.04.21 16:10, Aaron Lauterer wrote: >> Makes it possible to configure the RBD namespace via the GUI. [....] >> + xtype: 'displayfield', >> + name: 'namespace-hint', >> + userCls: 'pmx-hint', >> + value: gettext('RBD namespaces must be created manually!'), >> + bind: { >> + hidden: '{!namespacePresent}', >> + }, > > Alternatively we could probe the rbd storage if the namespace is present on submit? > > I.e., do the RADOS command equivalent to `rbd namespace list -p storage add/update hook if the namespace param is present? Anything against doing it via `rbd -p pool namespace ls`? AFAICT there is no lightweight command to list namespaces via `rados`. Only thing I found was listing all objects in the pool and fetching used namespaces from that output: `rados -p rbd ls --format json` but that is an expensive operation. One thing though that we should consider: so far adding an external RBD storage worked even if the auth keyring wasn't present. The storage would not get activated until the keyring file was present. But one could still do that after adding the storage config. With this check we would make it a requirement to first place the keyring file and then add the storage config. > >> }, >> - checked: true, >> - uncheckedValue: 0, >> - submitValue: false, >> - hidden: !me.isCreate, >> - boxLabel: gettext('Use Proxmox VE managed hyper-converged ceph pool'), >> - }]; >> + ]; >> >> me.callParent(); >> }, >> >