From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <d.csapak@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 04ACB9E2FF
 for <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon, 27 Nov 2023 11:18:21 +0100 (CET)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id DB4834D2D
 for <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon, 27 Nov 2023 11:17:50 +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>; Mon, 27 Nov 2023 11:17:50 +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 26EF744B00;
 Mon, 27 Nov 2023 11:17:50 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <391ac639-fad7-45d0-97eb-cdb1cba70d08@proxmox.com>
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2023 11:17:49 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Beta
Content-Language: en-US
To: Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com>,
 Proxmox Backup Server development discussion <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
References: <20230801092954.1686860-1-d.csapak@proxmox.com>
 <20230801092954.1686860-2-d.csapak@proxmox.com>
 <924f16d9-542a-4dfc-b374-db7ab7ad589b@proxmox.com>
 <43fbabe3-1c51-4d6b-ba92-6e570b985d62@proxmox.com>
 <d8f7bdf9-6a63-4e06-aaea-3ae1bca95caa@proxmox.com>
From: Dominik Csapak <d.csapak@proxmox.com>
In-Reply-To: <d8f7bdf9-6a63-4e06-aaea-3ae1bca95caa@proxmox.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results:  0
 AWL 0.017 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] [RFC PATCH proxmox-backup 1/3] api-types: make
 UploadStatistic an api type
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: Mon, 27 Nov 2023 10:18:21 -0000

On 11/27/23 11:12, Thomas Lamprecht wrote:
> On 27.11.23 11:01, Dominik Csapak wrote:
>> On 11/27/23 10:52, Thomas Lamprecht wrote:
>>> On 01.08.23 11:29, Dominik Csapak wrote:
>>>> +#[api()]
>>>> +#[derive(Copy, Clone, Serialize, Deserialize)]
>>>
>>> misses:
>>>
>>> #[serde(rename_all = "kebab-case")]
>>>
>>> or does that break manifest?
>>
>> it shouldn't since we only save it in the 'unprotected' field that is a 'Value'
>> but i'll check
> 
> I did not mean breakage as in "might break signatures", but as in
> backward/forward compat to any of our code/tools using that field
> already (tbh. not sure from top of my head if serde json magically
> falls back to field casing variants, e.g., check if foo-bar is there
> if not take foo_bar, I think not, so that's why I asked - should have
> said so in my first response).

mhmm.. we only ever write that once (during backup finish) and never read
it anywhere (until my patch) so it couldn't break any existing code.

adding the rename now would only affect new backups, but you might be
right that deserializing older backups might not be working then.

again, i'll check