[pve-devel] [PATCH pve-manager] ui: ha: consider status/presence of qdevice for warning

[Hannes Laimer]

On 12.09.25 18:36, Thomas Lamprecht wrote:
> Am 12.09.25 um 12:17 schrieb Hannes Laimer:
>> We showed this warning for setups with two nodes and a qdevice, but for
>> setups like this this warning didn't make Sense. This checks if a
>> qdevice is connected to the cluster before showing the 'not enough votes
>> for reliable HA'-warning.
> 
> Maybe it would be a bit more robust if we fleece that info in already in
> the backend – but disclaimer: I did not just check, so you really need
> to evaluate if it indeed makes sense or if applying this now as is might
> be the better route forward.
> 

I did consider that, but the `/cluster/config/nodes` endpoint seems to
really only be intended for actual corosync nodes, it is also used like
that. We could maybe add a `include-qdevice`-flag, but I think that
would seem rather out-of-place
```
   {
     "name": "qClusterN1",
     "node": "qClusterN1",
     "nodeid": "1",
     "quorum_votes": "1",
     "ring0_addr": "192.168.55.44"
   },
```
is what it currently returns, none of those fields except name(?) would
really make sense for a qdevice.

>>
>> Signed-off-by: Hannes Laimer <h.laimer at proxmox.com>
>> ---
>> This came up in support[1].
>>
>> [1] https://my.proxmox.com/en/dbsfk/ticket/view/20332
>>
>>   www/manager6/ha/ResourceEdit.js | 13 ++++++++++++-
>>   1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/www/manager6/ha/ResourceEdit.js b/www/manager6/ha/ResourceEdit.js
>> index 428672a8..04795da7 100644
>> --- a/www/manager6/ha/ResourceEdit.js
>> +++ b/www/manager6/ha/ResourceEdit.js
>> @@ -54,7 +54,18 @@ Ext.define('PVE.ha.VMResourceInputPanel', {
>>                   });
>>   
>>                   if (votes < MIN_QUORUM_VOTES) {
>> -                    fewVotesHint.setVisible(true);
>> +                    Proxmox.Utils.API2Request({
>> +                        url: '/cluster/config/qdevice',
>> +                        method: 'GET',
>> +                        failure: function (response) {
>> +                            fewVotesHint.setVisible(true);
>> +                        },
>> +                        success: function (response) {
>> +                            let qdeviceStatus = response.result.data;
>> +                            let qdeviceConnected = qdeviceStatus.State === 'Connected';
>> +                            fewVotesHint.setVisible(!qdeviceConnected);
>> +                        },
>> +                    });
> 
> nit: I would slightly prefer such inline requests to use the async
> Proxmox.Async.api2 method, that makes the code-flow a bit more linear
> and easier to grasp.
> 

sure, I've sent a fixup, you can just squash that in

>>                   }
>>               },
>>           });
>