From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <pve-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com>
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [IPv6:2a01:7e0:0:424::9])
by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9ECF21FF380
for <inbox@lore.proxmox.com>; Fri, 19 Apr 2024 14:47:36 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 7797F8E67;
Fri, 19 Apr 2024 14:46:32 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <44683843-21fa-4aba-a2f6-6187090fbae0@proxmox.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2024 14:46:28 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
To: Fiona Ebner <f.ebner@proxmox.com>,
Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
References: <20240409132555.364926-1-l.wagner@proxmox.com>
<20240409132555.364926-10-l.wagner@proxmox.com>
<456f56bc-46e5-4f86-99a3-ec349d57e9f1@proxmox.com>
Content-Language: de-AT, en-US
From: Lukas Wagner <l.wagner@proxmox.com>
In-Reply-To: <456f56bc-46e5-4f86-99a3-ec349d57e9f1@proxmox.com>
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0
AWL -0.002 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
Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH proxmox 09/19] notify: derive
Deserialize/Serialize for Notification struct
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>
Reply-To: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Errors-To: pve-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com
Sender: "pve-devel" <pve-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com>
On 2024-04-19 10:45, Fiona Ebner wrote:
> Nit: I always like a quick sentence for who needs it for such changes.
>
> Am 09.04.24 um 15:25 schrieb Lukas Wagner:
>> Signed-off-by: Lukas Wagner <l.wagner@proxmox.com>
>> ---
>> proxmox-notify/src/lib.rs | 10 +++++++---
>> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/proxmox-notify/src/lib.rs b/proxmox-notify/src/lib.rs
>> index 91c0b61..8d4dc63 100644
>> --- a/proxmox-notify/src/lib.rs
>> +++ b/proxmox-notify/src/lib.rs
>> @@ -159,11 +159,13 @@ pub trait Endpoint {
>> fn disabled(&self) -> bool;
>> }
>>
>> -#[derive(Debug, Clone)]
>> +#[derive(Debug, Clone, Serialize, Deserialize)]
>> +#[serde(rename_all = "kebab-case")]
>> pub enum Content {
>> /// Title and body will be rendered as a template
>> Template {
>> /// Name of the used template
>> + #[serde(rename = "template-name")]
>
> So I guess this is here, because the rename_all above is not recursive?
> Should we put rename_all on top of Template and ForwardedMail (if that
> even works), so we are sure not to forget it for potential future fields?
>
Yup, rename_all is not recursive. Added a rename_all for Template and ForwardedMail,
this makes more sense.
Thanks!
--
- Lukas
_______________________________________________
pve-devel mailing list
pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com
https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel