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 32F111FF142 for ; Mon, 02 Mar 2026 16:10:13 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 49E9837F0B; Mon, 2 Mar 2026 16:11:14 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <2c43947b-aa2d-40e0-96c9-b8f8567527ea@proxmox.com> Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2026 16:10:39 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [PATCH manager v1 1/1] api: startall: print info message if guest is skipped due to no onboot To: =?UTF-8?Q?Michael_K=C3=B6ppl?= , pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com References: <20260302134929.136399-1-m.koeppl@proxmox.com> <8e184210-3442-4040-9423-48184aeb95be@proxmox.com> Content-Language: en-US From: Fiona Ebner In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Bm-Milter-Handled: 55990f41-d878-4baa-be0a-ee34c49e34d2 X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp: 1772464216743 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL -1.223 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 POISEN_SPAM_PILL 0.1 Meta: its spam POISEN_SPAM_PILL_1 0.1 random spam to be learned in bayes POISEN_SPAM_PILL_3 0.1 random spam to be learned in bayes RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_CERTIFIED_BLOCKED 0.012 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 1.188 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 0.93 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 Message-ID-Hash: NZWK74HI5YXN7ISC7J4PO5UKMXC4RUUD X-Message-ID-Hash: NZWK74HI5YXN7ISC7J4PO5UKMXC4RUUD X-MailFrom: f.ebner@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 VE development discussion List-Help: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Am 02.03.26 um 4:02 PM schrieb Michael Köppl: > On Mon Mar 2, 2026 at 3:09 PM CET, Fiona Ebner wrote: >> Am 02.03.26 um 2:49 PM schrieb Michael Köppl: >>> The documentation states that startall only starts guests with >>> onboot=1 by default, and that this behavior can be overridden using the >>> force parameter. However, when startall is invoked via the pvenode CLI >>> without the force parameter, the Bulk Start task silently completes with >>> just "TASK OK", giving no indication of why certain VMs were not started. >>> The added informational message addresses this by clearly communicating >>> to users why those VMs were skipped. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Michael Köppl >>> --- >>> I encountered this while using startall and stopall myself and while >>> RTFM would indeed have helped, I still felt that an informational >>> message would improve the user's experience, especially since stopall >>> will stop all VMs without force=1, whereas startall requires the force >>> param. I only added the informational messages and did not change any >>> behavior because the behavior makes sense to me after thinking about >>> it some more. >>> >>> PVE/API2/Nodes.pm | 7 ++++++- >>> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/PVE/API2/Nodes.pm b/PVE/API2/Nodes.pm >>> index 5bd6fe492..3faa1e800 100644 >>> --- a/PVE/API2/Nodes.pm >>> +++ b/PVE/API2/Nodes.pm >>> @@ -1969,7 +1969,12 @@ sub get_start_stop_list { >>> my $resList = {}; >>> foreach my $vmid (keys %$vmlist) { >>> my $conf = $vmlist->{$vmid}->{conf}; >>> - next if $autostart && !$conf->{onboot}; >>> + >>> + if ($autostart && !$conf->{onboot}) { >>> + print >>> + "skipping $vmid because 'onboot' is not set in guest config, use 'force' parameter to override\n"; >>> + next; >>> + } >> >> I think printing it for every single guest without onboot is too much, >> because there could be thousands of such guests. One message at the >> beginning of the API call should be enough. >> > > Yeah, I wasn't entirely sure printing it for every guest is a good idea > either. Thanks for the feedback. I guess something like "skipping guests > without 'onboot' set in guest config, use 'force' param to override" > once at the beginning? > >> And I feel like the invocation from pve-guests.service should not have >> such a message end up in syslog to avoid confusion. It uses >> /usr/bin/pvesh --nooutput create /nodes/localhost/startall >> so maybe this is already the case. Could you check? >> > > I agree, but --nooutput does not seem to prevent this. I'll have a look > how this can be avoided. If it can't easily be avoided, I guess the message is best formulated in a purely descriptive way, i.e. without "use to override", and rather just mention that it's because force is not set.