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 47BDD1FF137 for ; Tue, 17 Feb 2026 09:16:59 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id A95661ED9F; Tue, 17 Feb 2026 09:17:46 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <63876b51-249a-4023-b9b6-ed2cecc7090b@proxmox.com> Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2026 09:17:11 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [RFC proxmox 00/22] New crate for firewall api types To: Dietmar Maurer , pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com References: <20260216104401.3959270-1-dietmar@proxmox.com> Content-Language: en-US From: Hannes Laimer In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Bm-Milter-Handled: 55990f41-d878-4baa-be0a-ee34c49e34d2 X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp: 1771316224925 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.060 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 Message-ID-Hash: NKYRIF3Z2YRG4DRVHI5M2ETLHGN5JL6G X-Message-ID-Hash: NKYRIF3Z2YRG4DRVHI5M2ETLHGN5JL6G X-MailFrom: h.laimer@proxmox.com X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; loop; banned-address; emergency; member-moderation; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.10 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion List-Help: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: On 2026-02-17 07:39, Dietmar Maurer wrote: >> I was wondering if we actually need/want a separate crate. This >> could be part of `pve-api-types`, alongside the verifiers we'd also have >> something like `external types` that the generator can use if specified >> for specific endpoints. The rational here would be, that for endpoint >> where we want more than just verifiers we could define the types >> directly. This would also make it somewhat straightforward to introduce >> concrete typing in other, unrelated, places where that would make sense. >> >> On the other hand, for re-usability without the general pve stuff having >> a crate might be handy. > > If you start implementing the firewall in Rust, you probably won't want > to import > all types from pve-api-types — that's unnecessary... > yes. We actually do something very similar with `proxmox-apt-api-types`, but also there it would be cool if we could tell the generator to use the existing types in `proxmox-apt-api-types` instead of generating[1] basically the same as we have in the crate[2] [1] https://git.proxmox.com/?p=proxmox.git;a=blob;f=pve-api-types/src/generated/types.rs;h=d0d39b5936585adb68d58d9d5eabe68c41e6b353;hb=refs/heads/master#l39 [2] https://git.proxmox.com/?p=proxmox.git;a=blob;f=proxmox-apt-api-types/src/lib.rs;h=d3f5b3ebf5cba36461df16ba6da7e88b69b3c148;hb=refs/heads/master#l315 > - Dietmar >