From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [212.224.123.68]) by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A073F1FF15C for ; Fri, 14 Nov 2025 00:19:03 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id CA0451DE4; Fri, 14 Nov 2025 00:19:56 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <9a5e31d0-fa6d-4001-b7bd-1bfdd4c322f6@proxmox.com> Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2025 00:19:23 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Beta To: Proxmox VE development discussion , Filip Schauer References: <20250916123257.107491-1-f.schauer@proxmox.com> <20250916123257.107491-5-f.schauer@proxmox.com> Content-Language: en-US From: Thomas Lamprecht In-Reply-To: <20250916123257.107491-5-f.schauer@proxmox.com> X-Bm-Milter-Handled: 55990f41-d878-4baa-be0a-ee34c49e34d2 X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp: 1763075937375 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL -0.023 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 RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_CERTIFIED_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to Validity was blocked. See https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for more information. RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to Validity was blocked. See https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for more information. RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_SAFE_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to Validity was blocked. See https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for more information. 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 storage v8 4/9] api: content: implement copying volumes between storages 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: , Reply-To: Proxmox VE development discussion Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: pve-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com Sender: "pve-devel" Am 16.09.25 um 14:36 schrieb Filip Schauer: > @@ -532,29 +540,52 @@ __PACKAGE__->register_method({ > name => 'copy', > path => '{volume}', > method => 'POST', > - description => "Copy a volume. This is experimental code - do not use.", > + description => "Copy a volume.", > + permissions => { > + description => "If the --delete option is used, the 'Datastore.Allocate' privilege is" > + . " required on the source storage." > + . " Without --delete, 'Datastore.AllocateSpace' is required on the target storage.", > + user => 'all', > + }, > protected => 1, > proxyto => 'node', > parameters => { > additionalProperties => 0, > properties => { > node => get_standard_option('pve-node'), > - storage => get_standard_option('pve-storage-id', { optional => 1 }), > + storage => get_standard_option( > + 'pve-storage-id', > + { > + optional => 1, > + completion => \&PVE::Storage::complete_storage_enabled, > + }, > + ), > volume => { > description => "Source volume identifier", > type => 'string', > + completion => \&PVE::Storage::complete_volume, > }, > - target => { > - description => "Target volume identifier", > - type => 'string', > - }, > - target_node => get_standard_option( > + 'target-storage' => get_standard_option( > + 'pve-storage-id', > + { > + description => "Target storage", > + completion => \&PVE::Storage::complete_storage_enabled, > + }, > + ), > + 'target-node' => get_standard_option( > 'pve-node', > { > description => "Target node. Default is local node.", > optional => 1, > }, > ), > + delete => { > + type => 'boolean', > + description => "Delete the original volume after a successful copy." > + . " By default the original is kept.", > + optional => 1, > + default => 0, > + }, > }, > }, Can be fine to do due to this being marked as experimental in the description, but would be really good to argue that in the commit message as it still is exposed in the API since a long time. If something made this completely useless until now it would be fine as is, otherwise it might make sense to keep the "target" param as fallback? _______________________________________________ pve-devel mailing list pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel