From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: <c.ebner@proxmox.com> Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [212.224.123.68]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E1BEDB8DBF for <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 6 Dec 2023 15:43:39 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id B84203C2A for <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 6 Dec 2023 15:43:39 +0100 (CET) Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (proxmox-new.maurer-it.com [94.136.29.106]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS for <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 6 Dec 2023 15:43:39 +0100 (CET) Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id E1E29425FD for <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 6 Dec 2023 15:43:38 +0100 (CET) Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2023 15:43:38 +0100 (CET) From: Christian Ebner <c.ebner@proxmox.com> To: =?UTF-8?Q?Fabian_Gr=C3=BCnbichler?= <f.gruenbichler@proxmox.com>, Proxmox Backup Server development discussion <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com> Message-ID: <309156804.2067.1701873818090@webmail.proxmox.com> In-Reply-To: <1776013681.1933.1701871754440@webmail.proxmox.com> References: <20231206113101.139743-1-c.ebner@proxmox.com> <1776013681.1933.1701871754440@webmail.proxmox.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Priority: 3 Importance: Normal X-Mailer: Open-Xchange Mailer v7.10.6-Rev55 X-Originating-Client: open-xchange-appsuite X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.048 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 T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE -0.01 - Subject: Re: [pbs-devel] [PATCH v3 proxmox-backup] ui: warn of missing gc-schedule, prune/verify jobs X-BeenThere: pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox Backup Server development discussion <pbs-devel.lists.proxmox.com> List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/options/pbs-devel>, <mailto:pbs-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://lists.proxmox.com/pipermail/pbs-devel/> List-Post: <mailto:pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com> List-Help: <mailto:pbs-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pbs-devel>, <mailto:pbs-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=subscribe> X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 06 Dec 2023 14:43:39 -0000 > On 06.12.2023 15:09 CET Fabian Gr=C3=BCnbichler <f.gruenbichler@proxmox.c= om> wrote: >=20 >=20 > for all of them there are possible reasons for not having them set up: > - verify: I trust my storage to protect me against bit rot, and I don't w= ant to incur the performance penalty of doing a full verification just to e= nsure logical consistency > - prune: I only do client-side pruning > - prune+GC: this is an append-only backup storage, I never want to remove= data True and I am aware of that. That is why I opted for a warning rather than = showing these as errors. But of course an information might be even more fi= tting here. But I would like to not hide the not configured states to much,= as the main point of adding these, is to inform the user that he might be = missing something, after all. Maybe I should also add a tool tip to show so= me explanation for the warning/info when hovered? >=20 > all of those could be improved of course (logical-verification as a verif= y mode or new job type, changing the warning to information if a prune acti= on was done recently, allowing an explicit "append-only" flag that actually= disallows pruning, ..) >=20 > all of them except for GC also don't take namespaces into account, but th= at might be harder to get right. Yes, these only cover if the datastore as a whole currently. Another reason= why the green check mark might not be so ideal after all. I will have a lo= ok if I might get the namespace information as well without having to perfo= rm to much API calls here, as then this status update might produce to much= calls for users with many namespaces. Also, I am not sure that this inform= ation can be compactly displayed except maybe a "there are namespaces witho= ut jobs configured". >=20 > there's another source of confusion if I am an unprivileged user - I migh= t not "see" the jobs that are defined, and get a warning as a result, even = though everything is okay. that last one *could* be tackled by leaking the = count, even if not leaking the details, but I am not sure if we want to do = that ;) for GC at least we could differentiate based on status code and mak= e the user aware that unknown is for lack of privs. Hmm, good point. Maybe I should not show the state information (and fetch v= ia the API) for that job at all if the user has no privileges? Will have a = look if I can exclude these. >=20 > I'd also differentiate between "unknown because no request made/no respon= se retrieved yet" and "unknown because request failed" - the latter case sh= ould be a "warning" as well (and ideally contain the error at least as tool= tip?), and not "missing", except if we can match the failure to missing pr= ivileges.. Yes, will have a look on improving this as well. Showing the error message = might be a bit more messy, but the suggested tool tip could be a viable opt= ion. Thank you for the feedback! Cheers, Chris