From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [212.224.123.68]) by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2A1A51FF143 for ; Mon, 19 Jan 2026 13:45:15 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 52A4F1E007; Mon, 19 Jan 2026 13:45:18 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <54ae18f9-3ac9-45a7-84f7-aeee2331d193@proxmox.com> Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2026 13:44:44 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird To: Daniel Kral , Proxmox VE development discussion References: <20251215102409.142350-1-d.kral@proxmox.com> <20251215102409.142350-4-d.kral@proxmox.com> <1aa14390-ebc4-44e8-874e-292354ad2468@proxmox.com> Content-Language: en-US From: Fiona Ebner In-Reply-To: X-Bm-Milter-Handled: 55990f41-d878-4baa-be0a-ee34c49e34d2 X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp: 1768826630922 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL -0.015 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 RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_CERTIFIED_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to Validity was blocked. See https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for more information. RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to Validity was blocked. See https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for more information. RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_SAFE_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to Validity was blocked. See https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for more information. 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 ha-manager 3/4] config, env: allow bulk updates with update_resources_config X-BeenThere: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Reply-To: Proxmox VE development discussion Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: pve-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com Sender: "pve-devel" Am 19.01.26 um 1:19 PM schrieb Daniel Kral: > On Mon Jan 19, 2026 at 12:48 PM CET, Fiona Ebner wrote: >> Nit: I feel like the $delete belongs inside the $changes for a clean >> interface. So something like >> $changes = { >> $sid => { >> param => $param, >> delete => $delete, >> } >> } >> >> I know the single caller using bulk won't need it, but the current >> interface does feel slightly off to me. What do you think? > > Sounds good, will do! Just for clarification: Is `param => $param` a > single changed property or is $param the hash of changes? I'd keep them together as a hash. Then we don't mix keys for single properties and the 'delete' key (which is on a different level semantically). _______________________________________________ pve-devel mailing list pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel