From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [IPv6:2a01:7e0:0:424::9]) by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DB0621FF13B for ; Wed, 03 Jun 2026 13:31:29 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 13DEB91EB; Wed, 3 Jun 2026 13:31:29 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <7c21f55f-ee84-4c33-bcc8-57da521e47de@proxmox.com> Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2026 13:30:53 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [PATCH proxmox 2/5] pbs-api-types: use match statement for maintenance mode check To: Robert Obkircher , pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com References: <20260602130001.217482-1-r.obkircher@proxmox.com> <20260602130001.217482-3-r.obkircher@proxmox.com> <912eeb36-ed92-4c0c-8d2b-6e8ea16ef007@proxmox.com> Content-Language: en-US, de-DE From: Christian Ebner In-Reply-To: <912eeb36-ed92-4c0c-8d2b-6e8ea16ef007@proxmox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Bm-Milter-Handled: 55990f41-d878-4baa-be0a-ee34c49e34d2 X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp: 1780486217632 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.069 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 Message-ID-Hash: 7HOAYOWQYR4E4GYMGSH6PUKYBRDHFJWT X-Message-ID-Hash: 7HOAYOWQYR4E4GYMGSH6PUKYBRDHFJWT X-MailFrom: c.ebner@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 Backup Server development discussion List-Help: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: On 6/3/26 1:03 PM, Robert Obkircher wrote: > > On 03.06.26 12:35, Christian Ebner wrote: >> only one question >> >> On 6/2/26 3:00 PM, Robert Obkircher wrote: >>> Use an exhaustive match statement to be more explicit and to draw >>> attention when new variants are added. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Robert Obkircher >> >> Reviewed-by: Christian Ebner >> >>> --- >>>   pbs-api-types/src/maintenance.rs | 27 ++++++++++++--------------- >>>   1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/pbs-api-types/src/maintenance.rs >>> b/pbs-api-types/src/maintenance.rs >>> index 2adb5d84..7def498b 100644 >>> --- a/pbs-api-types/src/maintenance.rs >>> +++ b/pbs-api-types/src/maintenance.rs >>> @@ -94,25 +94,22 @@ impl MaintenanceMode { >>>       } >>>         pub fn check(&self, operation: Operation) -> Result<(), >>> Error> { >>> -        if self.ty == MaintenanceType::Delete { >>> -            bail!("datastore is being deleted"); >>> -        } >>> - >>>           let message = >>> percent_encoding::percent_decode_str(self.message.as_deref().unwrap_or("")) >>>               .decode_utf8() >>>               .unwrap_or(Cow::Borrowed("")); >> >> question: should we also avoid decoding the message if not using it? >> Maybe by defining a closure for it? > > This should be fairly cheap in the common case where self.message is > None. > > The bigger issue is that the message is never percent-encoded in the > first place. I'd also avoid adding ": " if there is no message. I was > going to address this in a v2 for [1] but I can also add a patch to > this series. > > [1] > https://lore.proxmox.com/pbs-devel/50fe57b6-d7d4-40a1-9e17-bc904ea30cdd@proxmox.com/ Yes, question was rather if it is cheaper to bypass it altogether. But not that relevant here, can remain as is here (and the rest addressed in you other series).