From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [IPv6:2a01:7e0:0:424::9]) by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B53BD1FF148 for ; Mon, 27 Apr 2026 10:51:11 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 95F7615A01; Mon, 27 Apr 2026 10:51:11 +0200 (CEST) Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2026 10:50:32 +0200 From: Fabian =?iso-8859-1?q?Gr=FCnbichler?= Subject: Re: [PATCH proxmox-backup] sync: pull: use LogLineSender also for `load_file_into` To: Dominik Csapak , pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com References: <20260427075509.776694-1-d.csapak@proxmox.com> <1777277236.2hvl2my85r.astroid@yuna.none> In-Reply-To: <1777277236.2hvl2my85r.astroid@yuna.none> MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: astroid/0.17.0 (https://github.com/astroidmail/astroid) Message-Id: <1777279805.gmg78bgrrx.astroid@yuna.none> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Bm-Milter-Handled: 55990f41-d878-4baa-be0a-ee34c49e34d2 X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp: 1777279740806 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.054 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 Message-ID-Hash: FVM4HITRYXRR4OTJ6XBECH6RTPBZRNWS X-Message-ID-Hash: FVM4HITRYXRR4OTJ6XBECH6RTPBZRNWS X-MailFrom: f.gruenbichler@proxmox.com X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; loop; banned-address; emergency; member-moderation; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.10 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox Backup Server development discussion List-Help: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: On April 27, 2026 10:19 am, Fabian Gr=C3=BCnbichler wrote: > On April 27, 2026 9:55 am, Dominik Csapak wrote: >> [..]=20 > IMHO this should only return Ok(None), the `ok()` call at the end of > this fn seems quite weird - if we load a file and the CRC check fails, > we should not silently ignore this? >=20 > this also only makes sense for the manifest, for the archives handling > this correctly would make for earlier error handling.. >=20 > I'll send an alternative version doing that.. sent: https://lore.proxmox.com/pbs-devel/20260427084952.303245-1-f.gruenbic= hler@proxmox.com/T/#u