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 AA4C91FF138 for ; Mon, 15 Jun 2026 14:21:54 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 00227139E9; Mon, 15 Jun 2026 14:21:52 +0200 (CEST) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2026 14:21:48 +0200 Message-Id: Subject: Re: [PATCH datacenter-manager 5/6] fix #7639: task cache: consider running tasks when updating the cutoff timestamp From: "Lukas Wagner" To: "Dominik Csapak" , "Lukas Wagner" , X-Mailer: aerc 0.21.0-0-g5549850facc2-dirty References: <20260529133951.326103-1-l.wagner@proxmox.com> <20260529133951.326103-6-l.wagner@proxmox.com> <5f7e48a5-bf64-4b60-b0bb-1b7e7cb2fddf@proxmox.com> In-Reply-To: <5f7e48a5-bf64-4b60-b0bb-1b7e7cb2fddf@proxmox.com> X-Bm-Milter-Handled: 55990f41-d878-4baa-be0a-ee34c49e34d2 X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp: 1781526055276 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.053 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: 2T7KB4DOSUJU5HU2YCHDKYIJGNFXLMN7 X-Message-ID-Hash: 2T7KB4DOSUJU5HU2YCHDKYIJGNFXLMN7 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 Datacenter Manager development discussion List-Help: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: On Tue Jun 2, 2026 at 4:01 PM CEST, Dominik Csapak wrote: > tiny nit here: > > the patch would read slightly better if the upid node refactoring was > already used. e.g. those changes could be folded into the first patch > Good point, I'll send a v2 with the refactoring applied in the patch introducing the helper methods.