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 4B8751FF13C for ; Thu, 28 May 2026 18:18:25 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id A685D33C3C; Thu, 28 May 2026 18:18:22 +0200 (CEST) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Date: Thu, 28 May 2026 18:17:47 +0200 Message-Id: Subject: Re: [PATCH manager] ui: sdn: fabrics: node edit: fix typo to make editing node interfaces with existing IPv6 work From: "Lukas Sichert" To: "Fiona Ebner" , References: <20260528145222.639478-1-f.ebner@proxmox.com> In-Reply-To: <20260528145222.639478-1-f.ebner@proxmox.com> X-Bm-Milter-Handled: 55990f41-d878-4baa-be0a-ee34c49e34d2 X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp: 1779985040074 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.394 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 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: KPU4MEN4ZDV35KSU7DOU6AJX25OEIUW2 X-Message-ID-Hash: KPU4MEN4ZDV35KSU7DOU6AJX25OEIUW2 X-MailFrom: l.sichert@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: Thanks for sending the patch. I ran into the same issue today, where I could not select the bridge when adding nodes with IPv6 addresses to an OpenFabric fabric, while using the CLI this was possible. After applying the patch, the issue was resolved. About the change: OpenFabric is currently the only fabric supporting IPv6, and its schema defines the property as 'ip6', so the change looks correct to me.[1] Tested-by: Lukas Sichert Reviewed-by: Lukas Sichert [1] pve.proxmox.com/pve-docs/chapter-pvesdn.html#_configuration On 2026-05-28 16:50, Fiona Ebner wrote: > The data field is called 'ip6' in other places, not 'ipv6', for > example in the interfaces panel. > > If there is an interface with a pre-assigned IPv6 address, it > previously would not show, but submitting an edit would fail with an > error that the additional property 'ipv6' is not defined in the > schema: > >> interfaces[1]: invalid format - format error interfaces[1].ipv6: >> property is not defined in schema and the schema does not allow >> additional properties > > Signed-off-by: Fiona Ebner > --- > > Hope I didn't miss any actual usages of 'ipv6'. A close look from > somebody who is not new to this part of the could would be > appreciated! > > www/manager6/sdn/fabrics/NodeEdit.js | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/www/manager6/sdn/fabrics/NodeEdit.js b/www/manager6/sdn/fabr= ics/NodeEdit.js > index ef4577cb..0ace12cd 100644 > --- a/www/manager6/sdn/fabrics/NodeEdit.js > +++ b/www/manager6/sdn/fabrics/NodeEdit.js > @@ -155,7 +155,7 @@ Ext.define('PVE.sdn.Fabric.Node.Edit', { > name: iface.iface, > type: iface.type, > ip: iface.cidr, > - ipv6: iface.cidr6, > + ip6: iface.cidr6, > })); > =20 > if (me.includeWireguardInterfaces) { > --=20 > 2.47.3