From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [212.224.123.68]) by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F17DF1FF142 for ; Sat, 20 Jun 2026 00:17:27 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 54CD314B3D; Sat, 20 Jun 2026 00:17:27 +0200 (CEST) From: Thomas Lamprecht To: pdm-devel@lists.proxmox.com, Lukas Wagner Subject: applied: [PATCH datacenter-manager v2 0/6] fix #7639: task cache: consider running tasks when updating the cutoff timestamp Date: Sat, 20 Jun 2026 00:16:44 +0200 Message-ID: <178190740179.1802090.14713560637331897766.b4-ty@b4> X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.47.3 In-Reply-To: <20260615125823.193288-1-l.wagner@proxmox.com> References: <20260615125823.193288-1-l.wagner@proxmox.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Bm-Milter-Handled: 55990f41-d878-4baa-be0a-ee34c49e34d2 X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp: 1781907407511 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.735 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 KAM_LOTSOFHASH 0.25 Emails with lots of hash-like gibberish RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED -2.3 Sender listed at https://www.dnswl.org/, medium trust 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: FPWIZNUJBZQESJL6AG353EXBL6J2F4AD X-Message-ID-Hash: FPWIZNUJBZQESJL6AG353EXBL6J2F4AD X-MailFrom: t.lamprecht@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 Datacenter Manager development discussion List-Help: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: On Mon, 15 Jun 2026 14:58:17 +0200, Lukas Wagner wrote: > At the moment, PDM only polls finished tasks from remote nodes. > > Considering two tasks: > A: starts at 100, ends at 300 > B: starts ad 150, ends at 200 > > If PDM polls the node at t = 250, it would see that B has finished and > update the cutoff timestamp for the next poll to 150. However, since A > has a starttime of 100, and the cutoff determines the minimum starttime > of tasks to retrieve from the remote via the API, PDM would never fetch > task A, leading to gaps in the task archive. > > [...] Applied, thanks! [1/6] pdm-api-types: task-cache: add NativeUpid::node() convenience getter commit: 22ea4d98e578f22c799f7471a82bb87863a8fada [2/6] task cache: tests: allow to provide an explicit end time in 'task' helper commit: a93e137d55cd1822d3ca61c87b3e1effbbcb7fbf [3/6] task cache: tests: add get_cutoff helper commit: 8113c4727abf54265b062a54d5d80252b3d467cf [4/6] task cache: tests: add 'make_cache' convenience helper commit: 9536a4babb664db4dc1eb56128115597e8c78425 [5/6] fix #7639: task cache: consider running tasks when updating the cutoff timestamp commit: 6663f77c6c3d5011af36ea0616a799d63139195d [6/6] task cache: poll known active tasks every 30 seconds commit: 284cdaa8348a5477500144029f1fc8f2dacb7b8a