From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [IPv6:2a01:7e0:0:424::9]) by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A2BF81FF141 for ; Fri, 30 Jan 2026 09:23:56 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id BA0431768A; Fri, 30 Jan 2026 09:24:19 +0100 (CET) Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2026 09:23:44 +0100 From: Arthur Bied-Charreton To: Thomas Lamprecht Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH pve-network 1/2] fix #7077: Improve error messages for ID length mismatch Message-ID: References: <20260121103407.187187-1-a.bied-charreton@proxmox.com> <20260121103407.187187-5-a.bied-charreton@proxmox.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Bm-Milter-Handled: 55990f41-d878-4baa-be0a-ee34c49e34d2 X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp: 1769761356318 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.771 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 Message-ID-Hash: 6QBRSHK7JU2E6XSDMLLZIYK7R22KMGU2 X-Message-ID-Hash: 6QBRSHK7JU2E6XSDMLLZIYK7R22KMGU2 X-MailFrom: a.bied-charreton@proxmox.com X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; loop; banned-address; emergency; member-moderation; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header CC: Proxmox VE development discussion X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.10 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion List-Help: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: On Thu, Jan 29, 2026 at 06:38:50PM +0100, Thomas Lamprecht wrote: > Am 21.01.26 um 11:34 schrieb Arthur Bied-Charreton: > > Add explicit length checks to ID validation functions to provide clearer > > error messages in case of length mismatches > > A few of these checks might be also done by setting the "maxLength" and/or the > "minLength" property in the matching "register_standard_option" schema definition. > Could you check that? Would be IMO better to reuse the schema capabillities, and > that way, this limits would be also visible in the api schema directly. > > Hey Thomas, thanks for the feedback, I did not think about that. After looking into this, it seems like we could get rid of most of the parse_*_id functions (and probably others as well), but this would require changing PVE::JSONSchema::check_format to check in the following order: `length -> pattern -> custom format fn` as opposed to currently: `custom format fn -> pattern -> length` In the JSON Schema validation's current implementation, the length parameters are effectively ignored due to the pattern/format function being checked beforehand. Do you see any issue with changing the validation order?