Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH manager] fix #3182 #3183: change backup retention mask logic

[Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com>]

On 02.12.20 14:19, Dominik Csapak wrote:
> On 12/2/20 2:11 PM, Thomas Lamprecht wrote:
>> On 02.12.20 13:56, Dominik Csapak wrote:
>>> instead of relying on the contentTypeField (which does not need to
>>> exists, e.g. for iscsi), explicitely write it into the panel/icon
>>> mapping and check that
>>
>> why not return it for iSCIS? >
> 
> i don't understand what you mean? what should i return for iSCSI?
> do you mean i should add a field to the iscsi panel?
> (it has no content types to select, same as pbs/zfs over isci/etc.)
> 
> 
>>>
>>> better would be if we query the backend about storage capabilities,
>>> but such an api call does not exist yet, so this should be ok for now
>>
>> that's not true, the content type is exactly how the backend provides that,
>> that's why I used it. I'd like to avoid to further duplicating info all over
>> the place.
>>
> 
> what i meant was the only 'real' way is to ask the backend
> (be it once or every time) what capabilities the storage has.
> 
> now we are simply querying what we hardcoded for each storage in
> the frontend, my patch only adds a point where we save that specific
> info (again), which is not ideal i know
> 

hmm, true, we only have that info for existing storage - had wrongly the content
type split content view in mind... I'll rethink