From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: 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 106A360CA8; Thu, 17 Feb 2022 12:13:38 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id F03091E75D; Thu, 17 Feb 2022 12:13:07 +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) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS id 6F4481E752; Thu, 17 Feb 2022 12:13:07 +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 498C343035; Thu, 17 Feb 2022 12:13:07 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <770c729e-edd8-3471-76c0-ffafa6a4f24c@proxmox.com> Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2022 12:13:06 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:98.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/98.0 Content-Language: en-US To: Proxmox Backup Server development discussion , Wolfgang Bumiller Cc: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com, Hannes Laimer References: <20220216133917.101133-1-w.bumiller@proxmox.com> From: Thomas Lamprecht In-Reply-To: <20220216133917.101133-1-w.bumiller@proxmox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.058 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address BAYES_00 -1.9 Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% 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 - URIBL_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked. See http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block for more information. [schema.rs, lib.rs] Subject: [pve-devel] applied: [pbs-devel] [RFC proxmox] support quoted strings in property strings 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: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2022 11:13:38 -0000 On 16.02.22 14:39, Wolfgang Bumiller wrote: > This allows free form text to exist within property strings, > quoted, like: > key="A value with \"quotes, also commas",key2=value2 > or also: > "the value for a default_key",key2=value2 > > And drop ';' as a key=value separator since those are meant > for arrays inside property strings... > > Signed-off-by: Wolfgang Bumiller > --- > This is mostly a reaction to Hannes' maintenance mode series. > I think it would make more sense to improve our "property string > specification" (as much as there is one :P) to support quoted strings. > This way we can avoid the url encoding mess. > > We could also do this in PVE (which would be particularly useful if we > want to allow adding notes to net/disk devices). > AFAICT the only property strings containing string values which would > in *theory* allow quotes in the beginning wouldn't work with them in > *practice*, (eg. the 'path' in a container's mount point, or an 'mdev' > in a VM's hostpci entry?) > > proxmox-schema/src/lib.rs | 2 + > proxmox-schema/src/property_string.rs | 163 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > proxmox-schema/src/schema.rs | 25 ++-- > 3 files changed, 177 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-) > create mode 100644 proxmox-schema/src/property_string.rs > > applied, thanks! Would be great to get now for PVE too, albeit we can wait out the rust take over there ;-P @Hannes: can you rework the maintenance series to use this now, having mode and message/comment more cleanly separated? I'd already apply the rest of that series, but fwict it'd need changes in the first patch already, and the latter do not apply independently. From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: 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 106A360CA8; Thu, 17 Feb 2022 12:13:38 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id F03091E75D; Thu, 17 Feb 2022 12:13:07 +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) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS id 6F4481E752; Thu, 17 Feb 2022 12:13:07 +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 498C343035; Thu, 17 Feb 2022 12:13:07 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <770c729e-edd8-3471-76c0-ffafa6a4f24c@proxmox.com> Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2022 12:13:06 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:98.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/98.0 Content-Language: en-US To: Proxmox Backup Server development discussion , Wolfgang Bumiller Cc: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com, Hannes Laimer References: <20220216133917.101133-1-w.bumiller@proxmox.com> From: Thomas Lamprecht In-Reply-To: <20220216133917.101133-1-w.bumiller@proxmox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.058 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address BAYES_00 -1.9 Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% 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 - URIBL_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked. See http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block for more information. [schema.rs, lib.rs] Subject: [pbs-devel] applied: [RFC proxmox] support quoted strings in property strings X-BeenThere: pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox Backup Server development discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2022 11:13:38 -0000 On 16.02.22 14:39, Wolfgang Bumiller wrote: > This allows free form text to exist within property strings, > quoted, like: > key="A value with \"quotes, also commas",key2=value2 > or also: > "the value for a default_key",key2=value2 > > And drop ';' as a key=value separator since those are meant > for arrays inside property strings... > > Signed-off-by: Wolfgang Bumiller > --- > This is mostly a reaction to Hannes' maintenance mode series. > I think it would make more sense to improve our "property string > specification" (as much as there is one :P) to support quoted strings. > This way we can avoid the url encoding mess. > > We could also do this in PVE (which would be particularly useful if we > want to allow adding notes to net/disk devices). > AFAICT the only property strings containing string values which would > in *theory* allow quotes in the beginning wouldn't work with them in > *practice*, (eg. the 'path' in a container's mount point, or an 'mdev' > in a VM's hostpci entry?) > > proxmox-schema/src/lib.rs | 2 + > proxmox-schema/src/property_string.rs | 163 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > proxmox-schema/src/schema.rs | 25 ++-- > 3 files changed, 177 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-) > create mode 100644 proxmox-schema/src/property_string.rs > > applied, thanks! Would be great to get now for PVE too, albeit we can wait out the rust take over there ;-P @Hannes: can you rework the maintenance series to use this now, having mode and message/comment more cleanly separated? I'd already apply the rest of that series, but fwict it'd need changes in the first patch already, and the latter do not apply independently.