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 81A5D1FF13A for ; Wed, 01 Apr 2026 16:11:15 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 193AC1F2D6; Wed, 1 Apr 2026 16:11:44 +0200 (CEST) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Date: Wed, 01 Apr 2026 16:11:37 +0200 Message-Id: Subject: Re: [PATCH manager] api: backup: add return schema for backup jobs From: "Lukas Wagner" To: "Thomas Lamprecht" , "Lukas Wagner" , X-Mailer: aerc 0.21.0-0-g5549850facc2-dirty References: <20260327152015.394455-1-l.wagner@proxmox.com> <85e49408-7899-49b4-82d8-8aad320a9c04@proxmox.com> <74884b81-1438-4487-956c-f23982d820af@proxmox.com> In-Reply-To: <74884b81-1438-4487-956c-f23982d820af@proxmox.com> X-Bm-Milter-Handled: 55990f41-d878-4baa-be0a-ee34c49e34d2 X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp: 1775052639950 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.054 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: 7SFI52MW7SIVA6IEZNUQ4SAUSWEIKYMY X-Message-ID-Hash: 7SFI52MW7SIVA6IEZNUQ4SAUSWEIKYMY X-MailFrom: l.wagner@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 VE development discussion List-Help: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: On Wed Apr 1, 2026 at 1:46 PM CEST, Thomas Lamprecht wrote: > The convert_to_schedule method keeps the current starttime/dow params, bu= t the > API contract now is basically, dow and starttime might be there, if a vzd= um.cron > still exists and nobody updated/added/removed any backup job since a whil= e, as > that would convert them to the modern jobs.cfg, having keept the old vzdu= mp.cron > only around to ensure that PVE nodes with older pve-mananger in a cluster= still > handle pre-existing backup old-style jobs correctly. > But that was introduced mostly in commit 305921b1a ("api/backup: handle n= ew > vzdump jobs") [0] back in PVE 7.1 days, so we probably can just drop that= , and > we probably also do not need to wait until a next major release, as vzdum= .cron > cannot really be used anymore in practice (besides manual editing, which = I do > not care that much for). And for the backup job API response it's rather = a clear > cut, schedule is _always_ present, starttime/dow basically never, and all= (API) > clients need to cope with schedule since PVE 7.1, so dropping it from the= return > schema and (not a must, but nicer) deleting them from the response should= be fine. > > I know, it's a bit annoying to have those legacy ghosts in scope for such > patches, but it has some value to clean a few of them up when they resurf= ace, > especially when doing this with the end goal of encoding such types in ru= st in > pve-api-types for use with PDM, as all legacy cruft we can safely shave o= ff can > make our life simpler. > > [0]: https://git.proxmox.com/?p=3Dpve-manager.git;a=3Dcommitdiff;h=3D3059= 21b1a Thanks for the detailed explanation, highly appreciated. I've sent a follow-up, I hope this is what you've had in mind: https://lore.proxmox.com/all/20260401140903.364176-1-l.wagner@proxmox.com/T= /#u