From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <pve-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com>
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [212.224.123.68])
by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BE0981FF163
for <inbox@lore.proxmox.com>; Thu, 5 Dec 2024 18:28:40 +0100 (CET)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 61B661F5CB;
Thu, 5 Dec 2024 18:28:39 +0100 (CET)
Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2024 18:28:06 +0100
From: Gabriel Goller <g.goller@proxmox.com>
To: Dominik Csapak <d.csapak@proxmox.com>
Message-ID: <fdu4atfpmtwmnr3vpyvo67j2aw5gqid5v7qfudeywl7j3xtklb@mx36vrua4bbi>
References: <20241202104626.166056-1-g.goller@proxmox.com>
<20241202104626.166056-3-g.goller@proxmox.com>
<11531312-7635-451b-9ebf-58f08a95821c@proxmox.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <11531312-7635-451b-9ebf-58f08a95821c@proxmox.com>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20241002-35-39f9a6
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0
AWL -0.035 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
RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_CERTIFIED_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to
Validity was blocked. See
https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for more
information.
RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to
Validity was blocked. See
https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for more
information.
RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_SAFE_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to
Validity was blocked. See
https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for more
information.
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 manager 2/2] lxc: show IPs in summary view
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>
Reply-To: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
Cc: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"
Errors-To: pve-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com
Sender: "pve-devel" <pve-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com>
On 04.12.2024 10:25, Dominik Csapak wrote:
>high level comments/questions (i know they're not you're patches exactly, but still):
>
>* maybe it would be better to integrate this into the AgentIPView for vms?
> AFAICS the code is very similar and probably just needs a few adaptions
> to work there too (url,parsing, etc.)
>
> I'm not opposed to have two components, but then we should at least have
> a good reason in the commit message why this was not done, e.g.
> the data structures are too different, or something like that
>
>* IMHO we should keep the columns consistent between VMs and Containers,
> So either we change the AgentIPView to name/mac/ipv4/ipv6 too
> or we combine the ipv4/ipv6 here
Hmm I had a quick glance at the AgentIPView and while there is a lot of
the same code, I fear that I will have to do a lot of "if container do
this, otherwise do that".
Although we could make one generic panel for both, removing all the
mentions of "Agent" in the name/title though.
Let me know what you prefer!
>>+ startIPStore: function(store, records, success) {
>>+ var me = this;
>>+ let state = store.getById('status');
>>+
>>+ me.running = state && state.data.value === 'running';
>>+
>>+ var caps = Ext.state.Manager.get('GuiCap');
>>+
>>+ if (!caps.vms['VM.Monitor']) {
>
>the api call for getting the interfaces does not really need this permission?
>the api only needs 'vm.audit' for this information, so this check should reflect that
Ack.
>>+ var errorText = gettext("Requires '{0}' Privileges");
>>+ me.updateStatus(false, Ext.String.format(errorText, 'VM.Monitor'));
>>+ return;
>>+ }
_______________________________________________
pve-devel mailing list
pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com
https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel