Re: [PATCH pve-cluster v5 2/7] datacenter config: add unique-next-id to schema

[Fiona Ebner <f.ebner@proxmox.com>]

Am 22.09.26 um 4:43 PM schrieb Michael Köppl:
> On Tue Sep 22, 2026 at 4:22 PM CEST, Fiona Ebner wrote:
>> Am 21.09.26 um 5:54 PM schrieb Michael Köppl:
>>> From: Severen Redwood <severen.redwood@sitehost.co.nz>
>>>
>>> Add the `unique-next-id` property to the datacenter config schema to
>>> track whether only unique (ie. neither currently nor previously in use)
>>> VM/CT IDs should be suggested by the `/cluster/nextid` API endpoint.
>>>
>>> Co-authored-by: Daniel Krambrock <krambrock@hrz.uni-marburg.de>
>>> Signed-off-by: Severen Redwood <severen.redwood@sitehost.co.nz>
>>> [MK: use datacenter in commit message instead of datacentre]
>>> Signed-off-by: Michael Köppl <m.koeppl@proxmox.com>
>>> ---
>>>  src/PVE/DataCenterConfig.pm | 6 ++++++
>>>  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/src/PVE/DataCenterConfig.pm b/src/PVE/DataCenterConfig.pm
>>> index 004122e..54f9c10 100644
>>> --- a/src/PVE/DataCenterConfig.pm
>>> +++ b/src/PVE/DataCenterConfig.pm
>>> @@ -415,6 +415,12 @@ my $datacenter_schema = {
>>>              format => $next_id_format,
>>>              description => "Control the range for the free VMID auto-selection pool.",
>>
>> Should we add this as a sub-property of the next-id property string
>> instead rather than a separate new option?
> 
> Thanks for having a look! Yeah, I think this would also work better in
> the web UI if we also change the option there to "Next Free VMID" and
> simply add a "unique" checkbox. Just my 2 cents, though.

Sounds good.

>>>          },
>>> +        'unique-next-id' => {
>>> +            optional => 1,
>>> +            type => 'boolean',
>>> +            description =>
>>> +                "Only suggest VMIDs that are neither currently in use nor have previously been used.",
>>
>> Style nit: line too long
>> Nit: guest ID instead of VMID
> 
> I mostly kept this as VMID because in the description for next-id we
> also use VMID and I wanted to avoid using different nomenclature for
> what essentially affects the same kind of ID. If we make it a
> sub-property, should we use "Next Free Guest ID" in the web UI as well
> as "guest ID" in the description here? If we keep them as separate
> properties, it would IMO make sense to also adapt the next-id
> description to make it clear that this refers to the same thing.

Agreed, if we use "guest ID" it should also be adapted for the other
description/UI.