[pve-devel] [PATCH storage/manager v3] allow upload & import of qcow2 in the web UI

[Dominik Csapak]

On 3/26/25 12:41, Fiona Ebner wrote:
> Am 26.03.25 um 11:47 schrieb Dominik Csapak:
>> On 3/26/25 11:37, Fiona Ebner wrote:
>>> Am 25.03.25 um 16:14 schrieb Dominik Csapak:
>>>> most of the building blocks are already there:
>>>> * we can have qcow2 files in an import storage
>>>> * we can import qcow2 files via the api from such a storage
>>>>
>>>> this series fills in the missing bits & pieces:
>>>> * allow uploading qcow2 files into an import storage via the webgui
>>>> * adding the possibility to select such a file when creating a vm/disk
>>>>
>>>> We could maybe also allow this for raw/vmdk if we want to, but IMHO
>>>> we can start out with qcow2 and add the others as necssary.
>>>>
>>>> (if wanted, I can of course also add the others in a next version or as
>>>> a follow up)
>>>
>>>
>>> Yes, please! It would be nice to have all three at the same time. Or is
>>> there any specific reason why you limit it to qcow2? Otherwise, users
>>> will just ask why support for these is missing right away.
>>
>> No specific reason, it was just easier/quicker to implement one first.
>> When we also allow raw files,
>> should we also allow other extensions than '.raw'? not sure if there is
>> one that
>> is often used (since I think '.raw' is more a PVE thing)
>>
> 
> Right, raw is actually a bit of a headache because of that :P
> 
> We could either:
> 
> 1) have a list of common extensions for raw: .raw/.img/etc
> 
> 1b) also treat files without extension as raw?
> 
> 2) have a list of known extensions that are not raw and treat everything
> else as raw, while logging an informational message
> 
> I'd prefer 1), because we already require specific extensions for other
> uploads.
> 
> And likely we want to rename after/during upload, so images that are raw
> for us always have a ".raw" extension? Otherwise, we need to be careful
> enough to enforce the very same rules when parsing the import volume
> name and thus mostly also have them set in stone for the future. The
> advantage of the latter would be for the use case where one wants to
> manually make accessible their already existing image folders without
> using the API.
> 

actually thinking of renaming, i don't think that's necessary to do in the backend at all
since the client will provide a target filename, we can just rename it in the ui
to '.raw' for the user?

then we'd also not have to have a list of 'raw' formats on the backend at all?