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 82E8C9156B for ; Thu, 4 Apr 2024 10:22:39 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 6963833E7B for ; Thu, 4 Apr 2024 10:22:09 +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) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS for ; Thu, 4 Apr 2024 10:22:07 +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 99032451B3 for ; Thu, 4 Apr 2024 10:22:07 +0200 (CEST) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Date: Thu, 04 Apr 2024 10:22:06 +0200 Message-Id: From: "Stefan Sterz" To: "Proxmox VE development discussion" X-Mailer: aerc 0.17.0-69-g65571b67d7d3-dirty References: <20240403091010.11544-1-f.weber@proxmox.com> <20240403091010.11544-4-f.weber@proxmox.com> In-Reply-To: <20240403091010.11544-4-f.weber@proxmox.com> X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL -0.076 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 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 widget-toolkit 3/3] window: edit: avoid shared object for extra request params 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: Thu, 04 Apr 2024 08:22:39 -0000 On Wed Apr 3, 2024 at 11:10 AM CEST, Friedrich Weber wrote: > Currently, `Proxmox.window.Edit` initializes `extraRequestParams` to > an object that, if not overwritten, is shared between all instances of > subclasses. This bears the danger of modifying the shared object in a > subclass instead of overwriting it, which affects all edit windows of > the current session and can cause hard-to-catch UI bugs [1]. > > To avoid such bugs in the future, initialize `extraRequestParams` to > `undefined` instead, which forces subclasses to initialize their own > objects. > > Note that bugs of the same kind can still happen if a subclass > initializes `extraRequestParams` to an empty shared object and > inadvertently modifies it, but at least they will be limited to that > particular subclass. > > [1] https://lists.proxmox.com/pipermail/pve-devel/2024-March/062179.html > > Signed-off-by: Friedrich Weber > --- > > Notes: > With patch 2/3 applied, I think all occurrences of > `extraRequestParams` in PVE/PBS create their own object (PMG does not > seem to use `extraRequestParams`), so this patch should not break > anything, and if it does, it should be quite noticeable. > > new in v2 > > src/window/Edit.js | 8 +++++--- > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/src/window/Edit.js b/src/window/Edit.js > index d4a2b551..27cd8d01 100644 > --- a/src/window/Edit.js > +++ b/src/window/Edit.js > @@ -9,7 +9,7 @@ Ext.define('Proxmox.window.Edit', { > > // to submit extra params on load and submit, useful, e.g., if not a= ll ID > // parameters are included in the URL > - extraRequestParams: {}, > + extraRequestParams: undefined, > > resizable: false, > > @@ -80,7 +80,9 @@ Ext.define('Proxmox.window.Edit', { > let me =3D this; > > let values =3D {}; > - Ext.apply(values, me.extraRequestParams); > + if (me.extraRequestParams) { > + Ext.apply(values, me.extraRequestParams); > + } > > let form =3D me.formPanel.getForm(); > > @@ -209,7 +211,7 @@ Ext.define('Proxmox.window.Edit', { > waitMsgTarget: me, > }, options); > > - if (Object.keys(me.extraRequestParams).length > 0) { > + if (me.extraRequestParams && Object.keys(me.extraRequestParams).length = > 0) { > let params =3D newopts.params || {}; > Ext.applyIf(params, me.extraRequestParams); > newopts.params =3D params; i did a quick an dirty test and using a constructor like this seems to rule out this class of bug completelly: ```js constructor: function(conf) { let me =3D this; me.extraRequestParams =3D {}; me.initConfig(conf); me.callParent(); }, ``` basically it configures the edit window as usual, but overwrites the `extraRequestParams` object for each instance with a new empty object. so there are no more shared objects :) could you check whether that also fixes the other instances? [1]: https://docs-devel.sencha.com/extjs/7.0.0/classic/Ext.window.Window.ht= ml#method-constructor