From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: <f.weber@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 3856E9EBC8 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 7 Jun 2023 12:18:51 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 2103A3F9EC for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 7 Jun 2023 12:18:51 +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 <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 7 Jun 2023 12:18:50 +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 685B341E3A for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 7 Jun 2023 12:18:50 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <4855967b-49f1-1de1-d79c-a03600c503ed@proxmox.com> Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2023 12:18:49 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.11.0 Content-Language: en-US To: Fiona Ebner <f.ebner@proxmox.com>, Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com> References: <20230321170325.2401819-1-f.weber@proxmox.com> <3cccc262-6972-697a-3d97-0cd1bd96edbf@proxmox.com> From: Friedrich Weber <f.weber@proxmox.com> In-Reply-To: <3cccc262-6972-697a-3d97-0cd1bd96edbf@proxmox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL -0.463 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 -0.094 Looks like a legit reply (A) POISEN_SPAM_PILL 0.1 Meta: its spam POISEN_SPAM_PILL_1 0.1 random spam to be learned in bayes POISEN_SPAM_PILL_3 0.1 random spam to be learned in bayes 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: [pve-devel] [RFC storage] content-dirs: check that all content dirs are pairwise inequal 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, 07 Jun 2023 10:18:51 -0000 On 07/06/2023 12:01, Fiona Ebner wrote: > Should we also check in the create/update API calls for syntactic > duplicates and fail the call? E.g. I can successfully issue: > pvesh set /storage/foo --content-dirs backup=bar,iso=bar > and only get the error later during activation. Not allowing users to configure `content-dirs` with syntactic duplicates sounds good to me (it wouldn't catch situations involving symlinks, but those require quite some manual hacking from the user's side anyway). As this would be mostly a convenience feature, I'd send a patch after next week if that's okay.