From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <f.ebner@proxmox.com>
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [212.224.123.68])
(using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)
key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits))
(No client certificate requested)
by lists.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 48D96938A4
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Tue, 6 Feb 2024 10:00:06 +0100 (CET)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 2B4D230E65
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Tue, 6 Feb 2024 09:59:36 +0100 (CET)
Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (proxmox-new.maurer-it.com
[94.136.29.106])
(using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)
key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits))
(No client certificate requested)
by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Tue, 6 Feb 2024 09:59:35 +0100 (CET)
Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
by proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id D89EC446F4
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Tue, 6 Feb 2024 09:59:34 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <0acb22d3-bad0-4fac-af0c-3ccfcbbd5ada@proxmox.com>
Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2024 09:59:34 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
To: Christian Ebner <c.ebner@proxmox.com>,
Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
References: <20240205170827.340962-1-c.ebner@proxmox.com>
<362b0156-16d4-40d6-9eb0-6bea947e7092@proxmox.com>
<990490647.2281.1707209309110@webmail.proxmox.com>
From: Fiona Ebner <f.ebner@proxmox.com>
In-Reply-To: <990490647.2281.1707209309110@webmail.proxmox.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0
AWL -0.072 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address
BAYES_00 -1.9 Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1%
DMARC_MISSING 0.1 Missing DMARC policy
KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment
SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record
SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record
T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE -0.01 -
Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH proxmox master stable-2 1/2] apt: repos:
extend `Codename` by `Unknown` variant
X-BeenThere: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel.lists.proxmox.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/options/pve-devel>,
<mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.proxmox.com/pipermail/pve-devel/>
List-Post: <mailto:pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
List-Help: <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel>,
<mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 06 Feb 2024 09:00:06 -0000
Am 06.02.24 um 09:48 schrieb Christian Ebner:
>
>>>
>>> - if Some(codename) == current_codename.next() {
>>> - add_info("ignore-pre-upgrade-warning", message_new(base_suite));
>>> - } else if codename > current_codename {
>>> - add_info("warning", message_new(base_suite));
>>> + match current_codename.next() {
>>> + name if name == codename => {
>>> + add_info("ignore-pre-upgrade-warning", message_new(base_suite));
>>> + }
>>> + DebianCodename::Unknown(_, _) if codename > current_codename => {
>>> + add_info("warning", message_new(base_suite));
>>> + }
>>> + _ => {}
>>
>> Like this, the warning is lost when we match a known codename that is
>> newer than the current one. What is the issue with the current code you
>> are trying to address?
>
> There is no issue with the current code, I just refactored it to use the newly introduced variant instead of the Option.
> Am I missing something? This should behave just like the code before.
>
You only match the current codename and DebianCodename::Unknown(_, _).
Any known newer codename will just fall through to the default arm (and
the default arm can/should be avoided by pulling in the check for the
older codename from above).