From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <t.lamprecht@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 75ADC932F1
 for <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Fri, 16 Sep 2022 10:35:04 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 69B2A216FE
 for <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Fri, 16 Sep 2022 10:34:34 +0200 (CEST)
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 <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Fri, 16 Sep 2022 10:34:33 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
 by proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 9EFCD44474
 for <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Fri, 16 Sep 2022 10:34:33 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <0db22740-013f-d1c6-2d82-47a2d853022f@proxmox.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2022 10:34:32 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:105.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/105.0
Content-Language: en-GB
To: Stefan Hanreich <s.hanreich@proxmox.com>,
 Proxmox Backup Server development discussion <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
References: <20220915140857.1041222-1-s.hanreich@proxmox.com>
 <6d281db9-90e8-9164-6979-4b73b04cc627@proxmox.com>
 <7ecef7a9-afda-f0fd-55d1-924d4819745b@proxmox.com>
 <5c890689-bd43-1057-6ecf-62c8e615a176@proxmox.com>
 <1d9bffa3-950b-360a-e472-8633fad2b49e@proxmox.com>
From: Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com>
In-Reply-To: <1d9bffa3-950b-360a-e472-8633fad2b49e@proxmox.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results:  0
 AWL 0.892 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address
 BAYES_00                 -1.9 Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1%
 KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment
 NICE_REPLY_A           -1.816 Looks like a legit reply (A)
 SPF_HELO_NONE           0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record
 SPF_PASS               -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record
Subject: Re: [pbs-devel] [PATCH proxmox-backup] fix #4095: make http client
 read proxy config from envvars
X-BeenThere: pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Proxmox Backup Server development discussion
 <pbs-devel.lists.proxmox.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/options/pbs-devel>, 
 <mailto:pbs-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.proxmox.com/pipermail/pbs-devel/>
List-Post: <mailto:pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
List-Help: <mailto:pbs-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pbs-devel>, 
 <mailto:pbs-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2022 08:35:04 -0000

Am 16/09/2022 um 10:17 schrieb Stefan Hanreich:
> Yes, I was also not very happy with how I had to test it. If i really w=
anted to test it properly I'd add tests to the ProxyConfig as well as the=
 HttpsConnector, but that seemed a bit out of scope for this patch series=
,=C2=A0which=C2=A0is=C2=A0why=C2=A0I=C2=A0resorted=C2=A0to=C2=A0this=C2=A0=
(seemingly)=C2=A0basic=C2=A0test.
>=20
> It=C2=A0was=C2=A0more=C2=A0of=C2=A0a=C2=A0basic=C2=A0sanity=C2=A0check=C2=
=A0to=C2=A0see=C2=A0if=C2=A0I=C2=A0didn't=C2=A0break=C2=A0some=C2=A0stuff=
=2E

Sure, but test code should be near the thing actually tested. Note also t=
hat
if we would add https to ProxyConfig in the future it would fail a "dista=
nt"
crate in a bit confusing way (the "slightly confusing" part could probabl=
y be
avoided by checking either the actual error or a comment for why it's exp=
ected
to fail), all noticeable and thus fixable before rollout, so nothing _tha=
t bad_,
don't get me wrong, but it would Just Work=E2=84=A2 otherwise.

I'm also a bit wondering how setting environment variables affects other =
tests in
general, iow. how isolated this all is. I'd not 100% sure if rust spawns =
a separate
process per test and also then it may be a bit cleaner to first get the c=
urrent env
variable one is modifying and restoring that value at the end of the test=
=2E I don't
think that would be an issue here, as we shouldn't rely on any connection=
s at all,
so more of a general wondering-thing.

> Do you think it would make sense to create a separate patch series that=
 unit=C2=A0tests=C2=A0ProxyConfig=C2=A0with=C2=A0some=C2=A0(im)possible=C2=
=A0proxy=C2=A0settings?

The current ProxyConfig is 89 Lines with comments and generous extra line=
s
of rather straight forward code, so while a clear cut specific test defin=
itively
wouldn't be hurting, investing to much time in any would probably amount =
to a
rather mediocre ROI. With that in mind: your choice, if you send a somewh=
at sensible
one I'll definitively apply it.