From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <p.hufnagl@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 3D721BC2B3
for <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Fri, 22 Dec 2023 10:45:45 +0100 (CET)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 212DA1B83
for <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Fri, 22 Dec 2023 10:45:45 +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>; Fri, 22 Dec 2023 10:45:44 +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 601FC48C6B
for <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Fri, 22 Dec 2023 10:45:44 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <437a089d-e8ae-44df-b8a8-ad611f22c2c6@proxmox.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2023 10:45:43 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
To: Lukas Wagner <l.wagner@proxmox.com>,
Proxmox Backup Server development discussion <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
References: <20231218153638.609440-1-p.hufnagl@proxmox.com>
<20231218153638.609440-5-p.hufnagl@proxmox.com>
<79bc00aa-eb74-4c63-a757-c1fb703350bd@proxmox.com>
From: Philipp Hufnagl <p.hufnagl@proxmox.com>
In-Reply-To: <79bc00aa-eb74-4c63-a757-c1fb703350bd@proxmox.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0
AWL -0.041 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 proxmox-backup v5 4/4] tests: check if
include/exclude behavior works correctly
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: Fri, 22 Dec 2023 09:45:45 -0000
On 12/19/23 14:23, Lukas Wagner wrote:
>
>
> On 12/18/23 16:36, Philipp Hufnagl wrote:
>> diff --git a/tests/sync_jobs.rs b/tests/sync_jobs.rs
>> new file mode 100644
>> index 00000000..83877160
>> --- /dev/null
>> +++ b/tests/sync_jobs.rs
>> @@ -0,0 +1,34 @@
>> +use pbs_api_types::{
>> + apply_filters, split_by_include_exclude, BackupGroup,
>> BackupType, GroupFilter,
>> +};
>> +use std::str::FromStr;
>> +
>> +#[test]
>> +fn test_group_filters() {
>> + let group_filters = vec![
>> + GroupFilter::from_str("exclude:regex:.*10[1-3]").unwrap(),
>
> Just FIY, since GroupFilter implements FromStr, you can use the .parse
> method on the string:
>
> "...".parse::<GroupFilter>().unwrap();
>
> The superfish (`::<Type>`) is probably not needed, since the type can
> be inferred because you pass it to the split function ;)
I'll try that. Thanks
>
>> + GroupFilter::from_str("regex:.*10[2-8]").unwrap(),
>> + GroupFilter::from_str("exclude:regex:.*10[5-7]").unwrap(),
>> + ];
>> + let (include_filters, exclude_filters) =
>> split_by_include_exclude(Some(group_filters));
>> +
>> + let dont_backup = vec![
>> + "vm/101", "vm/102", "vm/103", "vm/105", "vm/106", "vm/107",
>> "vm/109",
>> + ];
>> + for id in dont_backup {
>> + assert!(!apply_filters(
>> + &BackupGroup::new(BackupType::Vm, id),
>> + &include_filters,
>> + &exclude_filters
>> + ));
>> + }
>> +
>> + let do_backup = vec!["vm/104", "vm/108"];
>> + for id in do_backup {
>> + assert!(apply_filters(
>> + &BackupGroup::new(BackupType::Vm, id),
>> + &include_filters,
>> + &exclude_filters
>> + ));
>> + }
>> +}
>
> Including tests is a great idea! I'd also add tests for all four cases:
> - no filters
> - only includes
> - only excludes
> - both
>
> Right now, you've only covered the 'both' case.
>
Yes, that makes the testing way more robust. Ill add this cases.