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. > > Signed-off-by: Hannes Laimer <[email protected]> > --- > 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. > } > }, > }); _______________________________________________ pve-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel
