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 B7FA61FF142 for ; Tue, 21 Apr 2026 15:07:58 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id B10A62401F; Tue, 21 Apr 2026 15:07:55 +0200 (CEST) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2026 15:07:20 +0200 Message-Id: Subject: Re: [PATCH pve-storage 7/7] api: add /nodes//storage//identity route From: "Lukas Wagner" To: "Thomas Lamprecht" , "Lukas Wagner" , "Fiona Ebner" , , X-Mailer: aerc 0.21.0-0-g5549850facc2-dirty 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> In-Reply-To: <231a34ce-06cb-40b7-b0d8-6238e368e60c@proxmox.com> X-Bm-Milter-Handled: 55990f41-d878-4baa-be0a-ee34c49e34d2 X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp: 1776776755163 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.004 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: DDQGI5XOAEFIV2E3RJJM3ZFWOSDHSFVQ X-Message-ID-Hash: DDQGI5XOAEFIV2E3RJJM3ZFWOSDHSFVQ X-MailFrom: l.wagner@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 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 =3D> 'download-url' }, >>>> { subdir =3D> 'file-restore' }, >>>> { subdir =3D> 'import-metadata' }, >>>> + { subdir =3D> 'identity' }, >>> >>> Just bike-shedding, but I'm wondering if 'identifier' would be slightly >>> more natural? >>=20 >> 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. 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. 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. [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/