From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from gate001.proxmox.com (gate001.proxmox.com [45.144.208.40]) by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E566E1FF09B for ; Mon, 12 Oct 2026 16:23:43 +0200 (CEST) Received: from gate001.proxmox.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by gate001.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id AA6342168A; Mon, 12 Oct 2026 16:23:39 +0200 (CEST) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2026 16:23:32 +0200 Message-Id: From: =?utf-8?q?Michael_K=C3=B6ppl?= To: "Fiona Ebner" , =?utf-8?q?Michael_K=C3=B6ppl?= , Subject: Re: [PATCH manager v7 17/24] ui: guest ID selector: show the error returned by nextid X-Mailer: aerc 0.22.0 References: <20261005144805.825538-1-m.koeppl@proxmox.com> <20261005144805.825538-18-m.koeppl@proxmox.com> <8be4919b-c4d3-4a63-b175-da59efbb9de6@proxmox.com> In-Reply-To: <8be4919b-c4d3-4a63-b175-da59efbb9de6@proxmox.com> X-Bm-Milter-Handled: 55990f41-d878-4baa-be0a-ee34c49e34d2 X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp: 1791815012992 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.142 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) POISEN_SPAM_PILL 0.1 Meta: its spam POISEN_SPAM_PILL_1 0.1 random spam to be learned in bayes POISEN_SPAM_PILL_3 0.1 random spam to be learned in bayes RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED -2.3 Sender listed at https://www.dnswl.org/, medium 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: NRLQJ2VOIIXI2QLVS35PWCEE4WCAVN6L X-Message-ID-Hash: NRLQJ2VOIIXI2QLVS35PWCEE4WCAVN6L X-MailFrom: m.koeppl@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 Fri Oct 9, 2026 at 6:22 PM CEST, Fiona Ebner wrote: > Am 05.10.26 um 4:50 PM schrieb Michael K=C3=B6ppl: >> The guest ID field validates IDs through the /cluster/nextid endpoint >> and reported any failure, including failed requests, as the ID being >> in use. Show the error the endpoint returns instead, so that the >> actual reason for rejecting an ID is visible. This is also needed for >> the endpoint to reject IDs that are not in use, but forbidden by the >> next-id datacenter option. >> >> Signed-off-by: Michael K=C3=B6ppl >> --- >> www/manager6/form/GuestIDSelector.js | 8 +++++--- >> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/www/manager6/form/GuestIDSelector.js b/www/manager6/form/Gu= estIDSelector.js >> index f3160a744..fdf9e7610 100644 >> --- a/www/manager6/form/GuestIDSelector.js >> +++ b/www/manager6/form/GuestIDSelector.js >> @@ -27,7 +27,7 @@ Ext.define('PVE.form.GuestIDSelector', { >> } >> >> if (me.validateExists =3D=3D=3D false && me.rejected) { >> - return me.inUseID; >> + return me.nextIDError; >> } >> >> return true; >> @@ -37,7 +37,6 @@ Ext.define('PVE.form.GuestIDSelector', { >> var me =3D this; >> var label =3D '{0} ID'; >> var unknownID =3D gettext('This {0} ID does not exist'); >> - var inUseID =3D gettext('This {0} ID is already in use'); > > Nit: it's a bit unfortunate that we lose this message with gettext(). > Can we somehow distinguish this and the enforcement case and still show > it if it's not the enforcement case? We do cache the guest list in the > UI, so maybe checking that, without even needing to do a 'nextid' API > call then? Could also be a follow-up, but would be nice for UX. Yeah true, it's not really worth losing the translation here. I think it makes sense to always go through nextid, though. Because if we're relying on the cached guest list, there could be cases where e.g. the creation of a guest is blocked if the guest list hasn't been refreshed since a guest was removed and we check against that cached list. Always making the request here would be worth it IMO. > >> var type =3D 'CT/VM'; >> >> if (me.guestType =3D=3D=3D 'lxc') { >> @@ -48,7 +47,6 @@ Ext.define('PVE.form.GuestIDSelector', { >> >> me.label =3D Ext.String.format(label, type); >> me.unknownID =3D Ext.String.format(unknownID, type); >> - me.inUseID =3D Ext.String.format(inUseID, type); >> >> Ext.apply(me, { >> fieldLabel: me.label, >> @@ -67,6 +65,10 @@ Ext.define('PVE.form.GuestIDSelector', { >> }, >> failure: function (response, opts) { >> me.rejected =3D true; >> + let error =3D response.result?.errors?.vmid= ; >> + me.nextIDError =3D error >> + ? Ext.htmlEncode(error.trim()) >> + : response.htmlStatus; >> me.validate(); >> }, >> });