From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <f.ebner@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) server-digest SHA256)
(No client certificate requested)
by lists.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0CCBF97F54
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 6 Mar 2024 16:09:18 +0100 (CET)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id E18BB1AE2D
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 6 Mar 2024 16:08:47 +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) server-digest SHA256)
(No client certificate requested)
by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 6 Mar 2024 16:08:47 +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 083C048837
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 6 Mar 2024 16:08:47 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <ec1fb33f-5810-4a52-a1da-17656539b9df@proxmox.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2024 16:08:46 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
To: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>,
Maximiliano Sandoval <m.sandoval@proxmox.com>
References: <20240306141458.472837-1-m.sandoval@proxmox.com>
From: Fiona Ebner <f.ebner@proxmox.com>
In-Reply-To: <20240306141458.472837-1-m.sandoval@proxmox.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0
AWL -0.071 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
T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE -0.01 -
Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH manager] ceph: pool edit: set target ratio
to 0 when the value is unset
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: Wed, 06 Mar 2024 15:09:18 -0000
Am 06.03.24 um 15:14 schrieb Maximiliano Sandoval:
> If the pool has a target_size_ratio set it might be desirable to unset
> its value, e.g. if set by mistake on .mgr.
>
> Currently unsetting the value won't do anything in the web UI. With this
> patch it is set to zero, which the API correctly understands and unsets
> it.
>
> one can verify the value set using
>
> $ ceph osd pool get <POOL_NAME> target_size_ratio
>
> after setting the valut to 0 through the API it will output
>
> Error ENOENT: option 'target_size_ratio' is not set on pool 'cephfs-test_data'
>
> Signed-off-by: Maximiliano Sandoval <m.sandoval@proxmox.com>
> ---
> www/manager6/ceph/Pool.js | 6 +++++-
> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/www/manager6/ceph/Pool.js b/www/manager6/ceph/Pool.js
> index c61d4f71..224f3cea 100644
> --- a/www/manager6/ceph/Pool.js
> +++ b/www/manager6/ceph/Pool.js
> @@ -226,7 +226,11 @@ Ext.define('PVE.CephPoolInputPanel', {
> onGetValues: function(values) {
> Object.keys(values || {}).forEach(function(name) {
> if (values[name] === '') {
> - delete values[name];
> + if (name === 'target_size_ratio') {
> + values[name] = 0;
> + } else {
> + delete values[name];
> + }
> }
> });
>
It might be cleaner to just use
emptyValue: 0,
in the field declaration like is already done for the "Target Size"
field. And the same issue is also present for the "Min. # of PGs" field,
right?