[pbs-devel] [PATCH backup/proxmox-backup 0/4] fix #5463: add optional consent banner before login

[Gabriel Goller]

Ok, you convinced me :)

On 23.05.2024 14:42, Thomas Lamprecht wrote:
>Am 23/05/2024 um 14:10 schrieb Gabriel Goller:
>> On 23.05.2024 11:24, Thomas Lamprecht wrote:
>>> Anyhow, fine by me, but I then still would prefer having this saved
>>> as structured data with an explicit type so that we can easily extend
>>> this with an option for actually enforcing such a consent, if ever
>>> requested.
>>>
>>> Maybe we can even add it as encoded text to an existing config, for PVE
>>> the datacenter one would be a good fit, for PMG with also have a cluster
>>> wide one IIRC and for PBS we could just add it to the node.cfg (and cache
>>> inside the http daemon).
>>
>> I don't think we will gain much from adding the text in a config file
>> here. The config files don't support multi-line values and thus we have to
>> escape all the newlines. If we do this, we would have to introduce a ui
>
>Yes, that's why I wrote "as encoded text" ;-)
>
>> textfield where the user can edit the consent file, otherwise he would
>
>Yes, re-using an existing config would allow more easily to expose it on
>the UI as we wouldn't have to add new API endpoints managing it, i.e., a
>feature.

I Agree.

>> have to escape all the newlines manually in the node.cfg file (which is
>> a PITA).
>
>For setting it via CLI it would probably best handled as manager CLI
>command.

We can do that.

>> I am also kind of opposed to a ui element because this is quite a niche
>> feature and would only clog the interface.
>
>I do not think the node configuration would get clogged, e.g., on the PBS
>UI the Configuration -> Other -> General panel has three rows, and the
>rest of that tab panel isn't packed either. Same for PVE's Node -> Options
>panel.

Either that, or somewhere in Access Control?

>Note that in the long run we want to bring every option to the UI sooner
>or later. How soon that is depends on mostly from the potential negative
>impact, not necessarily how niche that is.
>
>And sure, looking out for the UI not getting to crowded is a good thing,
>but the solution there should be to rework the UI to better lay out all
>the options and form fields without overwhelming the users, e.g. by using
>a different layout, advanced sections, ...
>
>>
>> I don't think an option to strictly enforcing the consent won't come any
>> time soon, as it's quite complicated to implement and is mostly used as
>> a legal requirement anyway.
>
>My thinking is a bit different here, I would not have thought about adding
>this before seeing the feature request including its references to
>legislature of one of the biggest countries in the world, so as there
>are hundreds of countries, lots of them with their own niche case, I'd
>rather make this as extensible as possible from the beginning to avoid
>having re-doing it later on for every other countries/agency/... niche
>use case.
>
>>
>> Another plus would be that VMWare does the same, so a user would just
>> have to come the .txt file /etc/proxmox-backup (+ rename it) and would
>> be ready to go.
>
>A reference to how VMWare does would be nice, besides that:
>1. copying the message to a text area in the UI or using a CLI tool
>   to set that is hardly more work.

Agree.

>2. More importantly, I'd be surprised if these messages are written
>   on the spot by an admin on the VMWare host directly, i.e., having
>   no other copy. Normally, those things get drafted by a legal
>   department, or external counsel, and thus are available from a
>   better source of truth than some hypervisor hosts config.

Yes, you are probably right, this wouldn't mindlessly get copied from
a vmware machine to a proxmox one.