From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: 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 7D4139078 for ; Wed, 8 Mar 2023 07:34:49 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 65F461C37C for ; Wed, 8 Mar 2023 07:34:49 +0100 (CET) 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 ; Wed, 8 Mar 2023 07:34:48 +0100 (CET) Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 3B4F942135 for ; Wed, 8 Mar 2023 07:34:48 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2023 07:34:47 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:111.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/111.0 Content-Language: de-AT, en-GB From: Thomas Lamprecht To: Proxmox VE development discussion , Max Carrara Reply-To: Proxmox VE development discussion References: <20230303175705.214121-1-m.carrara@proxmox.com> <20230303175705.214121-5-m.carrara@proxmox.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL -0.050 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address BAYES_00 -1.9 Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment NICE_REPLY_A -0.001 Looks like a legit reply (A) 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. [sencha.com] Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH v2 manager 2/2] ui: cert upload: fix private key field sending empty string X-BeenThere: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2023 06:34:49 -0000 Am 07/03/2023 um 19:33 schrieb Thomas Lamprecht: >> diff --git a/www/manager6/node/Certificates.js b/www/manager6/node/Certificates.js >> index 34013b44..84fc12ff 100644 >> --- a/www/manager6/node/Certificates.js >> +++ b/www/manager6/node/Certificates.js >> @@ -173,6 +173,9 @@ Ext.define('PVE.node.CertUpload', { >> emptyText: gettext('No change'), >> name: 'key', >> xtype: 'textarea', >> + getSubmitValue: function() { >> + return this.getValue() || null; >> + }, > > This works by luck, submitData is a boolean config for the textarea [0], and > getSubmitValue has nothing to do with the actual value, but just is the getter > for the submitValue bool, which the private actual getSubmitData fn checks [1] > Actually I was mistaken here (thanks Dominik for the reminder), here it indeed is the getter for the processed raw value even if there's a boolean config for submitValue - meh. But I'd still go for the inputpanel way in two patches, as that cleans the whole thing up nicer and avoid depending on a bit more internal details, making it more explicit. > [0]: https://docs.sencha.com/extjs/7.0.0/classic/Ext.form.field.TextArea.html#cfg-submitValue > [1]: https://docs.sencha.com/extjs/7.0.0/classic/src/Base.js-2.html#Ext.form.field.Base-method-getSubmitData >