From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <d.csapak@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 DE0559F56E
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon,  6 Nov 2023 10:34:59 +0100 (CET)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id B6CFE13A4D
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon,  6 Nov 2023 10:34:29 +0100 (CET)
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>; Mon,  6 Nov 2023 10:34:29 +0100 (CET)
Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
 by proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id E191C452E7;
 Mon,  6 Nov 2023 10:34:28 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <66a5548b-f8ff-48bc-bccd-d71ed5f4769f@proxmox.com>
Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2023 10:34:27 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Beta
Content-Language: en-US
To: Fiona Ebner <f.ebner@proxmox.com>,
 Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
References: <20231103115343.4133611-1-d.csapak@proxmox.com>
 <20231103115343.4133611-3-d.csapak@proxmox.com>
 <0ca79682-9c69-4fdf-a4ca-73dfb0adc396@proxmox.com>
From: Dominik Csapak <d.csapak@proxmox.com>
In-Reply-To: <0ca79682-9c69-4fdf-a4ca-73dfb0adc396@proxmox.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results:  0
 AWL 0.017 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
 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 PATCH guest-common 1/1] add profiles section
 config plugin
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: Mon, 06 Nov 2023 09:34:59 -0000

On 11/6/23 10:22, Fiona Ebner wrote:
> Am 03.11.23 um 12:53 schrieb Dominik Csapak:
>> +my $defaultData = {
>> +    propertyList => {
>> +	type => { description => 'Profile type.' },
>> +	id => {
>> +	    type => 'string',
>> +	    description => "The ID of the profile.",
>> +	    format => 'pve-configid',
>> +	},
> 
> The ID is usually not a property AFAIK. Doesn't this lead to duplication
> when writing the section config, i.e.
> 
> type: <ID>
> 	id <ID>
> 
> ? Do we gain anything by having it be a property?

mhm? the id has to be part of the properties, otherwise
the generated api with 'createSchema' etc. would not include it.

(it isn't always named id, e.g. in the storage plugins
it's 'storage')