From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from gate001.proxmox.com (gate001.proxmox.com [IPv6:2a0f:8001:1:32::40]) by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3279B1FF0E4 for ; Tue, 14 Jul 2026 15:54:53 +0200 (CEST) Received: from gate001.proxmox.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by gate001.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 8494C213EA; Tue, 14 Jul 2026 15:54:52 +0200 (CEST) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2026 15:54:14 +0200 Message-Id: To: "Dominik Csapak" , Subject: Re: [PATCH manager v2] ui: fabrics: skip unsupported interface properties on submit From: "Lukas Sichert" References: <20260603155521.125175-1-l.sichert@proxmox.com> <15aa5e3d-a2ea-4483-8ca8-91a39aaecf7c@proxmox.com> In-Reply-To: <15aa5e3d-a2ea-4483-8ca8-91a39aaecf7c@proxmox.com> X-Bm-Milter-Handled: 55990f41-d878-4baa-be0a-ee34c49e34d2 X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp: 1784037238340 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.197 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address DMARC_MISSING 0.1 Missing DMARC policy KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment (newer systems) RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW -0.7 Sender listed at https://www.dnswl.org/, low trust SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record Message-ID-Hash: VSZXN372HRNN536Z7HUQZ4465HC5W5KK X-Message-ID-Hash: VSZXN372HRNN536Z7HUQZ4465HC5W5KK 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 looking into this. I will send a v3. Some comments inline: On 2026-07-14 10:23, Dominik Csapak wrote: > wanted to apply this already, but during testing i noticed > that even without the patch, we don't have an ipv4 column here, so > i was confused by the commit message. You are right, the wording is very misleading here. The base panel always adds an IPv4 column, but it gets removed with 'me.commonColumns =3D me.commonColumns.filter((col) =3D> col.dataIndex !=3D=3D 'ip');' in bgp/InterfacePanel.js, so it is not actually there anymore. I still think it is cleaner to make IPv4 column support configurable, just like IPv6 column support already is. That part is only a behavior-preserving cleanup though. > It turns out, while this patch indeed fixes the error, the rationale > in the commmit message is not precise and patch seems to conflate two > things here (correct me if i'm missing something here) > > the panel never got a field via the column, because those got > filtered out via 'hasIpv6Support' or in the initComponent you removed > > so the stray 'ip' comes from the overall store, not the columns > (which get set in 'setValue') > > so this patch does two things here: > > it moves the removal of the ip column from the initcomponent > to a config (which is fine IMO, but does not change the actual > behavior) > > and it adds a manual filter in 'getValue' to skip the ip and ip6 field > depending on this config -> this is what actually fixes the issue > > > i think this should be split into two patch that reflect these two > changes, with the proper commit messages. > (though we can do it in one commmit, but then the message must explain > the issue properly) > > the code itself LGTM > It absolutely makes sense to do this in two patches. I will split this into a behavior-preserving cleanup for the IPv4 column handling and a separate fix for filtering unsupported `ip`/`ip6` properties in `getValue()` for v3.