From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from gate001.proxmox.com (gate001.proxmox.com [IPv6:2a0f:8001:1:32::40]) by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 34AA61FF0E4 for ; Tue, 14 Jul 2026 12:54:29 +0200 (CEST) Received: from gate001.proxmox.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by gate001.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 020ED213EA; Tue, 14 Jul 2026 12:54:29 +0200 (CEST) From: =?UTF-8?q?Fabian=20Gr=C3=BCnbichler?= To: pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com, Christian Ebner Subject: applied-series: [PATCH proxmox-backup 0/2] schedule prunes even with keep-all Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2026 12:53:31 +0200 Message-ID: <178402620783.364806.5570849530271223914.b4-ty@proxmox.com> X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.47.3 In-Reply-To: <20260608085919.288332-1-c.ebner@proxmox.com> References: <20260608085919.288332-1-c.ebner@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: 1784026418237 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.244 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address DMARC_MISSING 0.1 Missing DMARC policy KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment (newer systems) RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW -0.7 Sender listed at https://www.dnswl.org/, low 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: 6HPFNDGB6Q7EPYKJ2IQSQU4PFEP5OAAC X-Message-ID-Hash: 6HPFNDGB6Q7EPYKJ2IQSQU4PFEP5OAAC 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 Mon, 08 Jun 2026 10:59:17 +0200, Christian Ebner wrote: > Currently prune jobs without keep options will keep all snapshots, but > they are actually never scheduled. This caused a report in the > enterprise support about an unexpectedly `pending` job state, manual > execution of the job running just fine. > > Drop the early check for no keep options being set and actually run > the task on schedule, as this might also be used for testing only. > Further, escalate the info message for keep-all in case of no prune > options being set to a warning, so users can more easily identify > such jobs, but without breaking current behaviour with respect to > notifications. > > [...] Applied, thanks! [1/2] proxy: scheduler: drop early return for keep-all prune jobs commit: 28a6dd3327f0469bf46c3e9ea1b89f83668aa28a [2/2] prune job: escalate keep-all from info to warning commit: a36f0674f778fee992bf19ee16e213d40f51a026 Best regards, -- Fabian Grünbichler