From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <dietmar@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 26D0D999BF
 for <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Thu, 16 Nov 2023 15:07:27 +0100 (CET)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 09B0914C2C
 for <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Thu, 16 Nov 2023 15:07:27 +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 <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Thu, 16 Nov 2023 15:07:26 +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 4C1EC4389B
 for <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Thu, 16 Nov 2023 15:07:26 +0100 (CET)
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2023 15:07:25 +0100 (CET)
From: Dietmar Maurer <dietmar@proxmox.com>
To: Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com>,
 Proxmox Backup Server development discussion <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
Message-ID: <1179637567.3988.1700143645633@webmail.proxmox.com>
In-Reply-To: <7bdef13f-c705-456c-929c-d87946a13675@proxmox.com>
References: <20231116131904.2415371-1-dietmar@proxmox.com>
 <7bdef13f-c705-456c-929c-d87946a13675@proxmox.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
Importance: Normal
X-Mailer: Open-Xchange Mailer v7.10.6-Rev54
X-Originating-Client: open-xchange-appsuite
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results:  0
 AWL 0.375 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: [pbs-devel] [RFC proxmox-backup] PruneJobConfig: make
 "schedule" optional
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: Thu, 16 Nov 2023 14:07:27 -0000

> In other words, sync and verify jobs should gain the disable flag for
> feature parity, and to provide a slightly more obvious way to (temporarily)
> disable a job without loss of (schedule) information.
>  
> > Also, update_to_prune_jobs_config() looks wrong now because it remove jobs
> > without a schedule. Was this really indendet?
> 
> Without looking to closely into it: That seems indeed rather odd and
> is likely a bug. I did not check your change to closely (sorry, a bit
> overloaded with PVE stuff currently) but did you fix that here too?

Ok, I guess I will then just remove the "optional" flag from the API macro.