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) server-digest SHA256)
(No client certificate requested)
by lists.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 86C23E903
for ; Tue, 26 Sep 2023 16:55:12 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 6B8193570
for ; Tue, 26 Sep 2023 16:54:42 +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 ; Tue, 26 Sep 2023 16:54:41 +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 7D94748D4C
for ; Tue, 26 Sep 2023 16:54:41 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <7b18ab61-59ab-d242-a99a-e81a0eacbce0@proxmox.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2023 16:54:40 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/102.15.1
Content-Language: en-US
To: Thomas Lamprecht ,
Proxmox VE development discussion ,
=?UTF-8?Q?Fabian_Gr=c3=bcnbichler?=
References: <20230921130917.2000926-1-p.hufnagl@proxmox.com>
<20230921130917.2000926-2-p.hufnagl@proxmox.com>
<6aab04ab-2d39-42ac-b389-8e563c7322d0@proxmox.com>
From: Philipp Hufnagl
In-Reply-To:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0
AWL 0.724 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
NICE_REPLY_A -1.473 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 v8 1/2] fix #4849: api: download to
storage: automatically dectect and configure compression
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: Tue, 26 Sep 2023 14:55:12 -0000
On 9/26/23 16:23, Thomas Lamprecht wrote:
> Am 26/09/2023 um 14:25 schrieb Philipp Hufnagl:
>> On 9/26/23 12:56, Thomas Lamprecht wrote:
>>> while this is already applied, some comments inline, for a possible next
>>> time, and also the big
>>> question if this is even required, after all I can just check the few
>>> compression algorithms easily in the frontend, i.e., offloading a simple
>>> string regex match to the backend seems rather odd to me..
>> The problem with that is that the point where the iso is stored might
>> not be accessible for the client. If it is done by the PVE, it might
>> resolve the url differently.
>
> I'm not sure if I understand, I thought that's why we made the link
> metadata- query API in the first place (which I obv. do not want to drop
> in general)?
>
> As we got the correct (from the PVE node's POV) resolved filename
> returned by the metadata query API, so we can just do the regex string
> match for detecting a possible compression file extension on that in the
> frontend after that API call returns.
>
Yes that would have been possible, however it would not have saved an
API call since the call is needed anyway. I did it there because I
considered it a cleaner solution to do all handling of metadata in one
place rather then returning a "filename" that has to be further
processed in "filename" and "compression".