From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: <f.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) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by lists.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8837C923DC for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Tue, 4 Oct 2022 10:08:29 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 72761FBF for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Tue, 4 Oct 2022 10:08:29 +0200 (CEST) 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) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Tue, 4 Oct 2022 10:08:28 +0200 (CEST) Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id DC5D544781; Tue, 4 Oct 2022 10:08:21 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <33f63b51-6d44-df5f-64bc-0d69cd78c077@proxmox.com> Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2022 10:08:14 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.13.0 Content-Language: en-US To: pmg-devel@lists.proxmox.com, Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com> References: <20220720105948.291740-1-f.ebner@proxmox.com> From: Fiona Ebner <f.ebner@proxmox.com> In-Reply-To: <20220720105948.291740-1-f.ebner@proxmox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.762 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address BAYES_00 -1.9 Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment NICE_REPLY_A -1.467 Looks like a legit reply (A) 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] [pmg-devel] [PATCH-SERIES pve-common/pmg-api/pve-storage] pbs client: rework namespace usage and minor fixes X-BeenThere: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel.lists.proxmox.com> List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/options/pve-devel>, <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://lists.proxmox.com/pipermail/pve-devel/> List-Post: <mailto:pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com> List-Help: <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel>, <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=subscribe> X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 04 Oct 2022 08:08:29 -0000 Am 20.07.22 um 12:59 schrieb Fabian Ebner: > Mostly done in preparation for #3186 (refactor pbs client use in PVE), > to avoid the need to manually set the namespace for all call-sites in > PVE, when it's already present in the storage/PBS config. > > pve-common 1/5 and 2/5 and pmg-api 1/1 are improvements touching parts > of the same infrastructure, but not directly related. > > The other patches change PBSClient to auto-select the namespace from > its initial configuration if not explicitly overriden with a > namespaced parameter and deprecate namespaced parameters as a whole. > > Rationale is that essentially all current users of PBSClient are > configured for one namespace (there is the "status" call, which > doesn't depend on a namespace, but that doesn't contradict the > previous claim). It's less work on the call sites and there's no risk > to forget namespacing a parameter (as happened with pxar_restore in > PMG) if the PBSClient handles it itself. > > If the need for handling more than one namespace with a single client > ever arises, we can still add e.g. a set_namespace() function to the > PBSClient. > > Also makes it possible to restore a backup from a namespace in PMG, > which currently fails. > > > Dependency bump for new pve-common is needed for pve-storage and > pmg-api. > > Ping From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: <f.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 AFCD5923EB for <pmg-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Tue, 4 Oct 2022 10:16:47 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 981BC1560 for <pmg-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Tue, 4 Oct 2022 10:16:47 +0200 (CEST) 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 <pmg-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Tue, 4 Oct 2022 10:16:46 +0200 (CEST) Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id DC5D544781; Tue, 4 Oct 2022 10:08:21 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <33f63b51-6d44-df5f-64bc-0d69cd78c077@proxmox.com> Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2022 10:08:14 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.13.0 Content-Language: en-US To: pmg-devel@lists.proxmox.com, Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com> References: <20220720105948.291740-1-f.ebner@proxmox.com> From: Fiona Ebner <f.ebner@proxmox.com> In-Reply-To: <20220720105948.291740-1-f.ebner@proxmox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.761 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address BAYES_00 -1.9 Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment NICE_REPLY_A -1.467 Looks like a legit reply (A) SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record Subject: Re: [pmg-devel] [PATCH-SERIES pve-common/pmg-api/pve-storage] pbs client: rework namespace usage and minor fixes X-BeenThere: pmg-devel@lists.proxmox.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox Mail Gateway development discussion <pmg-devel.lists.proxmox.com> List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/options/pmg-devel>, <mailto:pmg-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://lists.proxmox.com/pipermail/pmg-devel/> List-Post: <mailto:pmg-devel@lists.proxmox.com> List-Help: <mailto:pmg-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pmg-devel>, <mailto:pmg-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=subscribe> X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 04 Oct 2022 08:16:47 -0000 Am 20.07.22 um 12:59 schrieb Fabian Ebner: > Mostly done in preparation for #3186 (refactor pbs client use in PVE), > to avoid the need to manually set the namespace for all call-sites in > PVE, when it's already present in the storage/PBS config. > > pve-common 1/5 and 2/5 and pmg-api 1/1 are improvements touching parts > of the same infrastructure, but not directly related. > > The other patches change PBSClient to auto-select the namespace from > its initial configuration if not explicitly overriden with a > namespaced parameter and deprecate namespaced parameters as a whole. > > Rationale is that essentially all current users of PBSClient are > configured for one namespace (there is the "status" call, which > doesn't depend on a namespace, but that doesn't contradict the > previous claim). It's less work on the call sites and there's no risk > to forget namespacing a parameter (as happened with pxar_restore in > PMG) if the PBSClient handles it itself. > > If the need for handling more than one namespace with a single client > ever arises, we can still add e.g. a set_namespace() function to the > PBSClient. > > Also makes it possible to restore a backup from a namespace in PMG, > which currently fails. > > > Dependency bump for new pve-common is needed for pve-storage and > pmg-api. > > Ping