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 803871FF13B for ; Wed, 20 May 2026 16:23:36 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 2BB28C0F4; Wed, 20 May 2026 16:23:35 +0200 (CEST) Date: Wed, 20 May 2026 16:23:29 +0200 From: Gabriel Goller To: Thomas Lamprecht Subject: Re: applied: [PATCH network] ui: sdn: fabrics: drop dead disabled bindings Message-ID: Mail-Followup-To: Thomas Lamprecht , pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com References: <20260520125125.251655-1-g.goller@proxmox.com> <177928645744.422707.5013508994250906952.b4-ty@b4> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <177928645744.422707.5013508994250906952.b4-ty@b4> User-Agent: NeoMutt/20241002-35-39f9a6 X-Bm-Milter-Handled: 55990f41-d878-4baa-be0a-ee34c49e34d2 X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp: 1779286994452 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.029 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 Message-ID-Hash: URARZVHAAMTGVCBVKN4ZNSZI565RTXN7 X-Message-ID-Hash: URARZVHAAMTGVCBVKN4ZNSZI565RTXN7 X-MailFrom: g.goller@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: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com 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 20.05.2026 16:14, Thomas Lamprecht wrote: > On Wed, 20 May 2026 14:51:16 +0200, Gabriel Goller wrote: > > The prefix fields used an invalid cbind setup for their disabled state, > > so the bindings didn't work and editing the fabric prefix was possible. > > > > Initially we didn't want the user to be able to update the prefix of a > > fabric, because we would need to add a mechanism to update all the node > > ips at the same time. This broke though and they became editable -- > > which is fine, since you still get an error "node has ip out of prefix". > > Keep it this way, because editing a fabric without nodes is still > > useful. > > > > [...] > > Applied, with s/'{!isCreate}'/!me.isCreate/ fix-up, thanks! Ahh, you were faster, thanks -- LGTM! > [manager] > [1/1] ui: sdn: fabrics: drop dead disabled bindings > commit: 4c424bf4f5a6549ae50162242e96d1a148cacb57 > [1/1] ui: sdn: fabrics: require IPv4 prefix on fabrics without IPv6 support > commit: 8bf5b298010a6cf65bcbe5430bc820be7e0f1ecd > [1/1] ui: sdn: fabrics: validate prefixes as CIDR addresses > commit: 5e2250fb98ba10a7d5b93db9b80fccbc69c492b2