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 2032D1FF183 for ; Wed, 16 Jul 2025 11:11:18 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id D6D47AFFD; Wed, 16 Jul 2025 11:12:22 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <181907e1-8e1e-487a-ad3b-5574c12cf5f2@proxmox.com> Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2025 11:11:46 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird To: Thomas Lamprecht , Proxmox VE development discussion , Gabriel Goller References: <20250709081432.91868-1-l.wagner@proxmox.com> <20250709081432.91868-3-l.wagner@proxmox.com> <673ff8a2-2e5e-432d-8770-5be2fce84216@proxmox.com> <9053b7a6-0199-41cc-9957-464b0ca0e365@proxmox.com> Content-Language: de-AT, en-US From: Lukas Wagner In-Reply-To: <9053b7a6-0199-41cc-9957-464b0ca0e365@proxmox.com> X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.019 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 RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2 0.001 Average reputation (+2) RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_CERTIFIED_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to Validity was blocked. See https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for more information. RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to Validity was blocked. See https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for more information. RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_SAFE_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to Validity was blocked. See https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for more information. SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH manager v3 2/2] ui: backup job details: show notification-mode instead of legacy keys X-BeenThere: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Reply-To: Proxmox VE development discussion Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: pve-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com Sender: "pve-devel" On 2025-07-15 21:59, Thomas Lamprecht wrote: > Am 14.07.25 um 10:42 schrieb Lukas Wagner: >> On 2025-07-14 10:30, Gabriel Goller wrote: > >>> Make we should change the Makefile to run `proxmox-biome check`? >> >> Maybe, but I think a separate make target could make more sense than including it >> in `make check`. The latter is also run during a package build process and it would >> be quite annoying to fail that because of a trivial formatting issue. We also don't do >> that for Rust, neither for clippy nor rustfmt. > > +1 > > If, we should IMO only warn on code failing a formatting check. > >> What definitely would make sense is to add biome format/check --write to the `make tidy` >> target, at the moment we seem to only run perltidy there. > > Yeah, that's still missing. Any input on target name? I used `tidy` due to > correlation with perltidy's name, but would something else be more sensible > here? I think `make tidy` is fine. Alternatives that come to mind are `make format` or `make fmt`. I don't have too much of an opinion here, as long as we use the same target name across all relevant repos. -- - Lukas _______________________________________________ pve-devel mailing list pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel