From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: <t.lamprecht@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 E8F0462AE8 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon, 21 Dec 2020 15:51:46 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id DDFD122343 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon, 21 Dec 2020 15:51:46 +0100 (CET) Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (proxmox-new.maurer-it.com [212.186.127.180]) (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 id C870722334 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon, 21 Dec 2020 15:51:45 +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 96D794552C for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon, 21 Dec 2020 15:51:45 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <431b2bac-f34e-c45d-dc57-e9b9c54bc807@proxmox.com> Date: Mon, 21 Dec 2020 15:51:44 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:85.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/85.0 Content-Language: en-GB To: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>, Fabian Ebner <f.ebner@proxmox.com> References: <20201221134820.24038-1-f.ebner@proxmox.com> <20201221134820.24038-5-f.ebner@proxmox.com> From: Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com> In-Reply-To: <20201221134820.24038-5-f.ebner@proxmox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL -0.064 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED -2.3 Sender listed at https://www.dnswl.org/, medium trust SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record Subject: [pve-devel] applied: Re: [PATCH/RFC common 4/5] SectionConfig: parse_config: add errors to result 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: Mon, 21 Dec 2020 14:51:47 -0000 On 21/12/2020 14:48, Fabian Ebner wrote: > so that callers can know about them. This is useful in places where we'd rather > abort then continue with a faulty configuration. For example, when reading the > storage configuration before executing a backup job. > > Originally-by: Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com> > Signed-off-by: Fabian Ebner <f.ebner@proxmox.com> > --- > > I skimmed over the cascade of usages and could not find a problem with > introducing the new key. Potentially problematic code would be something > that's iterating over the keys for $cfg and do something bad with the > new 'errors', but AFAICS, there is no such code. > > src/PVE/SectionConfig.pm | 19 ++++++++++++++++--- > 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > I may be biased, as it's my patch, but even after a few weeks it just seems like propagating the error information is a hard requirement for use-sites to be able to do the right thing, whatever that then is. applied, thanks!