From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <s.reiter@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 B4F2675483
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 21 Apr 2021 15:39:42 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id A64AF10061
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 21 Apr 2021 15:39:12 +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 id E292C10057
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 21 Apr 2021 15:39:11 +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 BC4C045BC3
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 21 Apr 2021 15:39:11 +0200 (CEST)
To: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>,
=?UTF-8?Q?Fabian_Gr=c3=bcnbichler?= <f.gruenbichler@proxmox.com>
References: <20210421111539.29261-1-s.reiter@proxmox.com>
<20210421111539.29261-5-s.reiter@proxmox.com>
<1619007307.tr64kjpdso.astroid@nora.none>
From: Stefan Reiter <s.reiter@proxmox.com>
Message-ID: <4561dca8-69bb-2fb6-225a-306ff65da61e@proxmox.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2021 15:39:10 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/78.9.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <1619007307.tr64kjpdso.astroid@nora.none>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0
AWL -0.376 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address
KAM_ASCII_DIVIDERS 0.8 Spam that uses ascii formatting tricks
KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment
NICE_REPLY_A -0.001 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
URIBL_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked. See
http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block for more
information. [pbsclient.pm, proxmox.com]
Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH common 04/10] PBSClient: allow different
command execution callback
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: Wed, 21 Apr 2021 13:39:42 -0000
On 21/04/2021 15:19, Fabian Grünbichler wrote:
> On April 21, 2021 1:15 pm, Stefan Reiter wrote:
>> do_raw_client_cmd gains a parameter which it calls instead of
>> run_command at the end. While at it, rename it to run_raw_client_cmd, as
>> the current run_raw_client_cmd simply calls do_raw_client_cmd anyway.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Stefan Reiter <s.reiter@proxmox.com>
>> ---
>> src/PVE/PBSClient.pm | 15 +++++++--------
>> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/src/PVE/PBSClient.pm b/src/PVE/PBSClient.pm
>> index c3bfab7..f6b46b2 100644
>> --- a/src/PVE/PBSClient.pm
>> +++ b/src/PVE/PBSClient.pm
>> @@ -134,7 +134,7 @@ my $USE_CRYPT_PARAMS = {
>> 'upload-log' => 1,
>> };
>>
>> -my sub do_raw_client_cmd {
>> +my sub run_raw_client_cmd {
>> my ($self, $client_cmd, $param, %opts) = @_;
>>
>> my $use_crypto = $USE_CRYPT_PARAMS->{$client_cmd};
>> @@ -185,12 +185,11 @@ my sub do_raw_client_cmd {
>> $logfunc->("run: " . join(' ', @$cmd));
>> }
>>
>> - run_command($cmd, %opts);
>> -}
>> -
>> -my sub run_raw_client_cmd {
>> - my ($self, $client_cmd, $param, %opts) = @_;
>> - return do_raw_client_cmd($self, $client_cmd, $param, %opts);
>> + if(my $startcmd = delete $opts{startcmd}) {
>> + return $startcmd->($cmd, %opts);
>> + } else {
>> + return run_command($cmd, %opts);
>
> I am not sure why this is needed? the only user for this has a
> $startcmd that is just a wrapper around run_command with options set, so
> it could just as well just pass these options to run_raw_client_cmd?
>
true, not needed, was a leftover from an earlier approach - this commit
can then be scrapped
>> + }
>> }
>>
>> my sub run_client_cmd {
>> @@ -206,7 +205,7 @@ my sub run_client_cmd {
>>
>> $param = [@$param, '--output-format=json'] if !$no_output;
>>
>> - do_raw_client_cmd(
>> + run_raw_client_cmd(
>> $self,
>> $client_cmd,
>> $param,
>> --
>> 2.20.1
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> pve-devel mailing list
>> pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com
>> https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> pve-devel mailing list
> pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com
> https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel
>
>