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) server-digest SHA256)
 (No client certificate requested)
 by lists.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2395C9BA24
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Fri, 26 May 2023 10:31:10 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 0407CB198
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Fri, 26 May 2023 10:31:10 +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) server-digest SHA256)
 (No client certificate requested)
 by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Fri, 26 May 2023 10:31:08 +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 B723647247
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Fri, 26 May 2023 10:31:07 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <84c7f8ff-ded5-1d59-689c-4b3385ec4fca@proxmox.com>
Date: Fri, 26 May 2023 10:31:07 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/102.11.0
Content-Language: en-US
To: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com
References: <20230524135649.934881-1-l.wagner@proxmox.com>
From: Lukas Wagner <l.wagner@proxmox.com>
In-Reply-To: <20230524135649.934881-1-l.wagner@proxmox.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results:  0
 AWL -0.098 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
 NICE_REPLY_A           -0.092 Looks like a legit reply (A)
 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 v2
 cluster/guest-common/manager/ha-manager/proxmox{,
 -perl-rs} 00/42] fix #4156: introduce new notification module
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: Fri, 26 May 2023 08:31:10 -0000

On 5/24/23 15:56, Lukas Wagner wrote:
>    - Channels:
>      Logically, channel can be thought of as a 'group of endpoints'. Each
>      endpoint can be included in one or more channels. If one is using the
>      notification API to send a notification, a channel has to be specified.
>      The notification will then be forwarded to all endpoints included in that
>      channel.
>      Logically they decouple endpoints from notification senders - for instance,
>      a backup job configuration would need to contain references to potentially
>      multiple  endpoints, or, a alternatively, always notify via *all* endpoints.
>      The latter would potentially shift more configuration effort to filters, for
>      instance if some backup jobs should only notify via *some* endpoints.
>      I think the group/channel-based approach provides a relatively nice middle
>      ground.
> 
Having worked on UI stuff yesterday, lifting some of my "Betriebsblindheit" after working on this
for a long time, I think I want to s/channel/(notification) group/g - I think
this should make it a bit clearer to the user what this actually means.

Also I want to somehow unify the concepts of groups and endpoints from a users perspective.
Everywhere where a user can choose a group (formerly channel) in the UI (e.g. backup jobs),
the user would also be able to select a single endpoint.
Benefit: If there is only one endpoint (e.g. send email to root), the user does not
have to create a group first.

The changes needed for these two things should be pretty minor, but ultimately
warrant a v3.

I'm out of office for the next two weeks, so I'll probably have to send the v3
along with any other requested changes after that.


-- 
- Lukas