From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <d.csapak@proxmox.com>
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [212.224.123.68])
 (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)
 key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by lists.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 65B60E268
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon, 25 Sep 2023 13:17:47 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 401E21E891
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon, 25 Sep 2023 13:17:17 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (proxmox-new.maurer-it.com
 [94.136.29.106])
 (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)
 key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon, 25 Sep 2023 13:17:15 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
 by proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 759D448D32;
 Mon, 25 Sep 2023 13:17:15 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <e215d978-0e79-41e0-a37a-142fb2324495@proxmox.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2023 13:17:14 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
To: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>,
 Fiona Ebner <f.ebner@proxmox.com>
References: <20230707080230.11949-1-f.ebner@proxmox.com>
From: Dominik Csapak <d.csapak@proxmox.com>
In-Reply-To: <20230707080230.11949-1-f.ebner@proxmox.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results:  0
 AWL 0.011 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
Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH v2 stable-7+master manager 1/2] ui: vm
 selector: handle empty string gracefully
X-BeenThere: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel.lists.proxmox.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/options/pve-devel>, 
 <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.proxmox.com/pipermail/pve-devel/>
List-Post: <mailto:pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
List-Help: <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel>, 
 <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2023 11:17:47 -0000

On 7/7/23 10:02, Fiona Ebner wrote:
> which is passed by the backup job window when using selection mode
> 'all', would be converted to [""] and wrongly add an entry with VMID
> 0 because the item "" could not be found in the store.
> 
> Reported in the community forum:
> https://forum.proxmox.com/threads/130164/
> 
> Fixes: 7a5ca76a ("fix #4239: ui: show selected but non-existing vmids in backup edit")
> Signed-off-by: Fiona Ebner <f.ebner@proxmox.com>
> ---
> 
> Applying either of the patches to stable-7 is enough to fix the issue.
> 
> No changes in v2.
> 
>   www/manager6/form/VMSelector.js | 2 +-
>   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/www/manager6/form/VMSelector.js b/www/manager6/form/VMSelector.js
> index 4c0bba13..bf2c8df7 100644
> --- a/www/manager6/form/VMSelector.js
> +++ b/www/manager6/form/VMSelector.js
> @@ -162,7 +162,7 @@ Ext.define('PVE.form.VMSelector', {
>       setValue: function(value) {
>   	let me = this;
>   	if (!Ext.isArray(value)) {
> -	    value = value.split(',');
> +	    value = value === '' ? [] : value.split(',');
>   	}
>   
>   	let store = me.getStore();

sorry for the late answer

the patch LGTM, but i would even go a step further and do a
----
value ??= [];
----

before the isArray check (that way we'd also handle undefined/null values)
(can ofc be done as a follow-up/later)


an alternative would be to filter out all empty values e.g. like this:

---
value.split(',').filter(v => v !== '')
---

this would then also handle values like: '100,,200'
idk if that's even possible to get here