From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [212.224.123.68]) by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7BA351FF179 for ; Wed, 12 Nov 2025 21:00:07 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id C5F0EC45C; Wed, 12 Nov 2025 21:01:00 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <92fb6cb6-4443-4998-acf4-77b2dac773ac@proxmox.com> Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2025 21:00:27 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Beta To: Proxmox Datacenter Manager development discussion , Lukas Wagner References: <20251111105059.148997-1-l.wagner@proxmox.com> <20251111105059.148997-6-l.wagner@proxmox.com> Content-Language: en-US From: Thomas Lamprecht In-Reply-To: <20251111105059.148997-6-l.wagner@proxmox.com> X-Bm-Milter-Handled: 55990f41-d878-4baa-be0a-ee34c49e34d2 X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp: 1762977602260 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL -0.024 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 RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_CERTIFIED_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to Validity was blocked. See https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for more information. RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to Validity was blocked. See https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for more information. RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_SAFE_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to Validity was blocked. See https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for more information. SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record Subject: Re: [pdm-devel] [RFC datacenter-manager 5/8] pdm-api-types: remote upid: add type field to RemoteUpid X-BeenThere: pdm-devel@lists.proxmox.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox Datacenter Manager development discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Reply-To: Proxmox Datacenter Manager development discussion Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: pdm-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com Sender: "pdm-devel" Am 11.11.25 um 11:50 schrieb Lukas Wagner: > diff --git a/lib/pdm-api-types/src/remote_upid.rs b/lib/pdm-api-types/src/remote_upid.rs > index 454c9b1f..32106e42 100644 > --- a/lib/pdm-api-types/src/remote_upid.rs > +++ b/lib/pdm-api-types/src/remote_upid.rs > @@ -5,19 +5,30 @@ use anyhow::{bail, Error}; > use proxmox_schema::api_types::SAFE_ID_REGEX; > use proxmox_schema::{ApiType, Schema, StringSchema}; > > +use crate::remotes::RemoteType; > + > pub const REMOTE_UPID_SCHEMA: Schema = StringSchema::new("A remote UPID") > - .min_length("C!UPID:N:12345678:12345678:12345678:::".len()) > + .min_length("abc:C!UPID:N:12345678:12345678:12345678:::".len()) This shouldn't be a problem as all real UPIDs should be quite a bit longer, but if the string would have been close to the actual realistic minimum before, increasing the minimum length would be a breaking change, or do I miss something? Again, should not matter in practice. > .schema(); _______________________________________________ pdm-devel mailing list pdm-devel@lists.proxmox.com https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pdm-devel