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".