From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <g.goller@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 DEDE6EF1B
for <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Thu, 28 Sep 2023 09:32:31 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id B45E312F9A
for <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Thu, 28 Sep 2023 09:32:31 +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
for <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Thu, 28 Sep 2023 09:32:29 +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 611C444199
for <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Thu, 28 Sep 2023 09:32:29 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <47c83e8c-9f53-1002-ab12-5d53e18bfbed@proxmox.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2023 09:32:28 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/102.15.0
To: Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com>,
Proxmox Backup Server development discussion <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
References: <20230920141124.231371-1-g.goller@proxmox.com>
<a17afc2b-9322-45f1-adaf-d1307d83d110@proxmox.com>
Content-Language: en-US
From: Gabriel Goller <g.goller@proxmox.com>
In-Reply-To: <a17afc2b-9322-45f1-adaf-d1307d83d110@proxmox.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0
AWL 0.368 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
NICE_REPLY_A -1.473 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
Subject: Re: [pbs-devel] applied: [PATCH proxmox-backup] fix #4895: jobs:
ignore task log not found error
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: Thu, 28 Sep 2023 07:32:31 -0000
On 9/27/23 17:41, Thomas Lamprecht wrote:
> [..]
> applied, thanks!
>
> IMO it might be worth doing this more centrally, e.g., catch a ENOENT in
> the upid_read_status's `File::open(path)` call and return either
> `TaskState::Unknown { endtime: upid.startime }`, which is also the
> default of upid_read_status on other (parsing) errors, or add a new
> `TaskState::NotFound` state to differ between a unknown result and this
> situation, and make it more likely that call-sites handle this
> explicitly.
>
> What do you think?
Could make sense because we do quite often:
```
upid_read_status(&info.upid).unwrap_or(TaskState::Unknown { endtime: now });
```
The problem is that we use different endtimes (mostly either 0 or 'now')
on every
call. So we would have to convert this to a match statement matching
`TaskState::Unknown`
and changing the endtime AFAICT.