From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <l.wagner@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 A6F89E65E
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Tue, 18 Jul 2023 16:07:12 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 87B651C3FE
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Tue, 18 Jul 2023 16:07:12 +0200 (CEST)
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>; Tue, 18 Jul 2023 16:07:12 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
 by proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id D751F42C59
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Tue, 18 Jul 2023 16:07:11 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <7fc4e458-6a22-43a0-39d8-8ba9da4e9f8c@proxmox.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2023 16:07:11 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: de-AT, en-US
To: Dominik Csapak <d.csapak@proxmox.com>,
 Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
References: <20230717150051.710464-1-l.wagner@proxmox.com>
 <f4d88987-6aec-22d5-6635-ceccb3f30d64@proxmox.com>
 <a4ed197e-1c61-7d07-b418-3126607d4363@proxmox.com>
 <93e5a6f5-a163-6008-b2d6-c27478827d05@proxmox.com>
From: Lukas Wagner <l.wagner@proxmox.com>
In-Reply-To: <93e5a6f5-a163-6008-b2d6-c27478827d05@proxmox.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results:  0
 AWL -0.102 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] [PATCH v3 many 00/66] fix #4156: introduce new
 notification system
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: Tue, 18 Jul 2023 14:07:12 -0000



On 7/18/23 15:58, Dominik Csapak wrote:
>> I already have patches laying around that implement the additional filter matchers, but
>> decided to not include them in the patch series yet. Before the new matchers are merged,
>> I would need to 'stabilize' the properties associate with every single notification event,
>> as at that point those become part of our public facing API. At the moment, the properties
>> are only an implementation detail that is used for rendering notification templates.
>>
>> This is also the reason why the filter implementation (filter.rs) is somewhat overkill
>> atm for _just_ severity filtering. Everything needed for these advanced features is already
>> in place - because I already implemented that stuff and cut it out later for the patch series.
> 
> ah ok, so the mode is currently unused.
> one of my questions remains though, does it make sense to configure a filter without
> any filtering properties? i guess not really
> 

Yes, I guess a filter without any matchers does not make much sense. I could add a check
that ensures that at least one is configured - making the min-severity matcher required  for now, as there
are not any other matchers.

Thanks!

-- 
- Lukas