From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [IPv6:2a01:7e0:0:424::9]) by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 45C791FF142 for ; Tue, 21 Apr 2026 16:06:58 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id B803225ED8; Tue, 21 Apr 2026 16:06:54 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <9b71117b-17d2-4987-bbf2-81a182b665f7@proxmox.com> Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2026 16:06:47 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [PATCH pve-storage 7/7] api: add /nodes//storage//identity route To: Thomas Lamprecht , Lukas Wagner , Fiona Ebner , pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com, pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com References: <20260415115817.348947-1-l.wagner@proxmox.com> <20260415115817.348947-8-l.wagner@proxmox.com> <262d3355-b8ec-470c-8fed-32a7b151fee4@proxmox.com> <231a34ce-06cb-40b7-b0d8-6238e368e60c@proxmox.com> <85e5c377-ab04-407a-9670-7552591791f1@proxmox.com> Content-Language: en-US, de-DE From: Christian Ebner In-Reply-To: <85e5c377-ab04-407a-9670-7552591791f1@proxmox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Bm-Milter-Handled: 55990f41-d878-4baa-be0a-ee34c49e34d2 X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp: 1776780323175 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.021 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 POISEN_SPAM_PILL_3 0.1 random spam to be learned in bayes SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record URIBL_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked. See http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block for more information. [proxmox.com] Message-ID-Hash: 4RDMYJMMTI7QZT2SIVR522N2T3NJB6RH X-Message-ID-Hash: 4RDMYJMMTI7QZT2SIVR522N2T3NJB6RH X-MailFrom: c.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: On 4/21/26 3:51 PM, Thomas Lamprecht wrote: > Am 21.04.26 um 15:05 schrieb Lukas Wagner: >> On Tue Apr 21, 2026 at 2:35 PM CEST, Thomas Lamprecht wrote: >>> Am 17.04.26 um 11:10 schrieb Lukas Wagner: >>>> On Fri Apr 17, 2026 at 10:54 AM CEST, Fiona Ebner wrote: >>>>> Am 15.04.26 um 1:57 PM schrieb Lukas Wagner: >>>>>> @@ -308,6 +308,7 @@ __PACKAGE__->register_method({ >>>>>> { subdir => 'download-url' }, >>>>>> { subdir => 'file-restore' }, >>>>>> { subdir => 'import-metadata' }, >>>>>> + { subdir => 'identity' }, >>>>> >>>>> Just bike-shedding, but I'm wondering if 'identifier' would be slightly >>>>> more natural? >>>> >>>> I can change it if you prefer, but I think I prefer 'identity', if I'm >>>> honest. >>> Why not "instance-id"? it's used widely in this series and is IMO quite >>> descriptive. >> >> It was 'instance-id' in the RFC, but in the patch notes I mentioned that >> a more generic term could maybe be useful in case we want need to reuse the >> concept of a identity for other storages as well, to which Chris agreed. > > IMO identity and instance-id are both basically just as generic, or > at least one isn't so much more specific that the difference actually > relays to the user something. >> After some brief discussion with Chris I went for 'identity' [1]. >> >> In the PBS-client part of these patches, Chris mentioned that >> 'instance-id' alone could be misleading [2, 3], which is why I went with >> the names that I used in this series. > > Well, FWICT Chris didn't really mentioned that what the ID of the > "instance-id" part actually pointed at could be potentially misleading, > which I can somewhat relate to as concern, some might indeed expect this > ID/identity to pop up in logs or configs as "for this client instance/id). Yes, that was the main concern [0], especially with the client subcommand to get the server instance id being called `instance-id` client side, which IMO does not make sense and can be misleading. > But for one that's IMO not specific to using "instance-id", that's often an > issue when talking about server properties in client, and IMO using "identity" > doesn't really fixes this either, rather one would need to specify that > it's the (instance) ID of the server, e.g., by using "server-instance-id" or > "server-identity" - again, both are fine in general, but there's really no > difference for the presented arguments here, important is to add the actual > subject of the id/identity/identifier/... over using some synonym or. > >> If you prefer the more specific 'instance-id', I can of course change it >> back to that. Would you then also propose changing the terms used in >> PBS? There we now the 'server-identity' sub-commands for manager and >> client and the '/nodes/.../server-identity' routes, which *return* the >> `pbs-instance-id` field in the response. > > IMO it can be more than fine to e.g. use "xyz" in the server and > "server-xyz" for that thing in the client, albeit not a must and can have > a slight headache to hold up that difference when using shared (struct) > types. > > That said, I like the ring of instance-id and it somewhat fits in naming > with the existing machine-id, but that really isn't a deciding factor on > it's own. > My main point is that just omitting "instance" and spelling out ID as > identity IMO doesn't solves the - IMO not big but definitively real - > concern that Chris pointed out, for that IMO "server-identity", > "server-id", "server-instance-id" would be all much better, as they > actually relay where the ID comes from, i.e., what it actually identifies. > >> >> [1] https://lore.proxmox.com/pve-devel/98f893be-871c-4a46-9b06-3ee17978131d@proxmox.com/ >> >> [2] https://lore.proxmox.com/pve-devel/9a4d051a-58a5-445f-a127-c11706d93194@proxmox.com/ >> [3] https://lore.proxmox.com/pve-devel/ee0dcf35-41fe-4393-a86c-5bf1871633a4@proxmox.com/ > > Thanks for those references in any case. [0] https://lore.proxmox.com/pve-devel/ee0dcf35-41fe-4393-a86c-5bf1871633a4@proxmox.com/