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 1F85E1FF13F for ; Thu, 09 Apr 2026 11:52:11 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 95A291DA48; Thu, 9 Apr 2026 11:52:54 +0200 (CEST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Date: Thu, 09 Apr 2026 11:51:59 +0200 Message-Id: To: "Arthur Bied-Charreton" , Subject: Re: [PATCH proxmox-perl-rs v2 07/16] pve-rs: notify: smtp: add OAuth2 parameters to bindings From: "Lukas Wagner" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Mailer: aerc 0.21.0-0-g5549850facc2-dirty References: <20260325131444.366808-1-a.bied-charreton@proxmox.com> <20260325131444.366808-8-a.bied-charreton@proxmox.com> In-Reply-To: <20260325131444.366808-8-a.bied-charreton@proxmox.com> X-Bm-Milter-Handled: 55990f41-d878-4baa-be0a-ee34c49e34d2 X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp: 1775728251456 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.055 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: U5ZIE7YSI6367A4XQJLAG4DP5HZUP4JR X-Message-ID-Hash: U5ZIE7YSI6367A4XQJLAG4DP5HZUP4JR 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 Mar 25, 2026 at 2:14 PM CET, Arthur Bied-Charreton wrote: > Update the proxmox-notify SMTP API bindings with the OAuth2 parameters. > > While touching this code, it made sense to change the bindings' > signatures to take the whole config hashes, as opposed to an ever > growing list of single parameters. > > This has the advantage of reducing churn in the bindings when new fields > are added to the SmtpConfig structs, as well as getting rid of possible > errors that could occur due to passing parameters in the wrong order > from Perl code. > > Note that this is a breaking change to the internal API, the calling > code in pve-manager needs to be updated along with these bindings. > > The oauth2_refresh_token is passed as a standalone parameter, since it > is not supposed to be written to the notifications config, it will be > managed separately on the Rust side. > > Signed-off-by: Arthur Bied-Charreton > --- LGTM: Reviewed-by: Lukas Wagner