From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from gate001.proxmox.com (gate001.proxmox.com [45.144.208.40]) by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A1A471FF0AB for ; Wed, 23 Sep 2026 09:48:16 +0200 (CEST) Received: from gate001.proxmox.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by gate001.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id C008D21548; Wed, 23 Sep 2026 09:48:13 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <878dc249-d809-408f-a20a-d61d74f81cd5@proxmox.com> Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2026 09:48:04 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [PATCH pve-cluster v5 2/7] datacenter config: add unique-next-id to schema To: =?UTF-8?Q?Michael_K=C3=B6ppl?= , pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com References: <20260921155410.938337-1-m.koeppl@proxmox.com> <20260921155410.938337-3-m.koeppl@proxmox.com> <8c347489-ccfe-498a-846b-6485e4014201@proxmox.com> Content-Language: en-US From: Fiona Ebner In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Bm-Milter-Handled: 55990f41-d878-4baa-be0a-ee34c49e34d2 X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp: 1790149688529 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.525 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address DMARC_MISSING 0.1 Missing DMARC policy KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment (newer systems) 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 Message-ID-Hash: U5HQNGLO6L46VVUABGQZKXU3TZXQ23C2 X-Message-ID-Hash: U5HQNGLO6L46VVUABGQZKXU3TZXQ23C2 X-MailFrom: f.ebner@proxmox.com X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; loop; banned-address; emergency; member-moderation; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.10 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion List-Help: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: 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 >>> >>> 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 >>> Signed-off-by: Severen Redwood >>> [MK: use datacenter in commit message instead of datacentre] >>> Signed-off-by: Michael Köppl >>> --- >>> 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.