[pve-devel] [PATCH pve-storage v2 3/5] tree-wide: make use of content type assertion helper

[Daniel Kral]

On 2/19/25 16:16, Fiona Ebner wrote:
> Am 11.02.25 um 17:07 schrieb Daniel Kral:
>> Make any code path with an existent content type assertion use the newly
>> introduced content type assertion helper.
>>
>> As those code paths must perform actions on the storage anyway, the
>> `storage_check_enabled` in the helper subroutine adds an additional
>> precondition check without breaking the existing APIs with a new error.
>>
> 
> So here you do talk about storage_check_enabled(). Did you maybe send an
> incorrect version of the previous patch ;)?

That was an oversight, but as mentioned in the previous response, I'd 
hope to be able to make the `storage_config` to a 
`storage_check_enabled` in a v3 if there's nothing breaking about this 
when replacing the existing checks :).

> 
>> Signed-off-by: Daniel Kral <d.kral at proxmox.com>
> 
> With the previous patch fixed:
> 
> Reviewed-by: Fiona Ebner <f.ebner at proxmox.com>
> 
> However, see below:
> 
>> ---
>> changes since v1:
>> - new!
>>
>>   src/PVE/API2/Storage/Status.pm | 6 ++----
>>   src/PVE/Storage.pm             | 3 ++-
>>   2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/src/PVE/API2/Storage/Status.pm b/src/PVE/API2/Storage/Status.pm
>> index c854b53..e5652f4 100644
>> --- a/src/PVE/API2/Storage/Status.pm
>> +++ b/src/PVE/API2/Storage/Status.pm
>> @@ -478,8 +478,7 @@ __PACKAGE__->register_method ({
>>   	    raise_param_exc({ content => "upload content type '$content' not allowed" });
>>   	}
>>   
>> -	die "storage '$storage' does not support '$content' content\n"
>> -	    if !$scfg->{content}->{$content};
>> +	PVE::Storage::assert_content_type_supported($cfg, $storage, $content, $node);
> 
> Above here is already a storage_check_enabled() check that would become
> superfluous and could be removed. While it doesn't hurt to keep, I'm
> wondering if we can better encode the semantics for the new helper in
> its name and get rid of the duplicate check after all. Also to make it
> easier for future usages to remember that the enabled check is already
> done too. Maybe calling the helper assert_content_type_available() or to
> be rather explicit assert_storage_ready_for_content_type() would make it
> clear that it means that both, the storage is enabled on the node and
> the content type is configured for the storage? Other suggestions are
> welcome!

Agreed, a better name would be good here, so it doesn't add confusion! I 
think I'd go for the first suggestion in a v3, but I'll think about 
it... The second suggestion is great, but I'd like to keep most helpers 
in one line if possible - but this shouldn't be more important than 
clarity of course.