From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <d.csapak@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 29DD89DFF5
 for <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon, 30 Oct 2023 12:06:31 +0100 (CET)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 0C165E5FD
 for <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon, 30 Oct 2023 12:06:01 +0100 (CET)
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 <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon, 30 Oct 2023 12:05:59 +0100 (CET)
Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
 by proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id BDDA241E60
 for <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon, 30 Oct 2023 12:05:59 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <a86c676b-39ec-ad35-5ff7-747cc69bddf8@proxmox.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2023 12:05:58 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/102.11.2
Content-Language: en-US
To: Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com>,
 Proxmox Backup Server development discussion <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
References: <20231018103911.3798182-1-d.csapak@proxmox.com>
 <20231018103911.3798182-2-d.csapak@proxmox.com>
 <9f41a51d-e6ca-49bf-a959-e989d3ec8bad@proxmox.com>
From: Dominik Csapak <d.csapak@proxmox.com>
In-Reply-To: <9f41a51d-e6ca-49bf-a959-e989d3ec8bad@proxmox.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results:  0
 AWL 1.498 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           -2.972 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
Subject: Re: [pbs-devel] [RFC proxmox 1/3] new proxmox-server-config crate
X-BeenThere: pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Proxmox Backup Server development discussion
 <pbs-devel.lists.proxmox.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/options/pbs-devel>, 
 <mailto:pbs-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.proxmox.com/pipermail/pbs-devel/>
List-Post: <mailto:pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
List-Help: <mailto:pbs-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pbs-devel>, 
 <mailto:pbs-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2023 11:06:31 -0000

On 10/25/23 18:38, Thomas Lamprecht wrote:
> Would name it "proxmox-rest-server-config" or "proxmox-api-config", and here
> I'm asking myself (without really trying to answer it myself): why isn't
> this part of proxmox-rest-server, it's only relevant when used in combination
> of there, simply to allow use-sites that do not depend on the rest of that
> crates code?
> 

you're right that it's currently only used together with the 
rest-server, but i though it might bite us in the future if we put that 
together. We might want to have some daemons that does not have a rest
part in the future?
e.g. like we now have a few of them in PVE (pvestatd, qmeventd, spiceproxy)

also having more smaller crates does improve compile time for boxes
with many cores (not really an argument for or against, just a side effect)

> Also, mostly important for  the other two crates: did you check the history
> of the files you mode? If there's anything relevant, I'd favor isolating that
> and then merging it in, like I did when splitting out rest-server, but it can
> sometimes be a bit of a PITA, so  can be decided case-by-case for those new
> crates..
> 

i'll look into it. I did not spend much time on such things for the RFC.
just wanted to see how others feel about the general approach

> Am 18/10/2023 um 12:39 schrieb Dominik Csapak:
> 
>> diff --git a/proxmox-server-config/src/lib.rs b/proxmox-server-config/src/lib.rs
>> new file mode 100644
>> index 0000000..8377978
>> --- /dev/null
>> +++ b/proxmox-server-config/src/lib.rs
>> @@ -0,0 +1,302 @@
>> +//! A generic server config abstraction
>> +//!
>> +//! Used for proxmox daemons to have a central point for configuring things
> 
> "Used for API daemons of Proxmox projects as a central point for configuring their
> base environment, like ..."
> 
> (Proxmox is our TM and is not a project itself)

yes, of course

> 
>> +//! like base/log/task/certificate directories, user for creating files, etc.
>> +
>> +use std::os::linux::fs::MetadataExt;
>> +use std::path::{Path, PathBuf};
>> +use std::sync::OnceLock;
>> +
>> +use anyhow::{format_err, Context, Error};
>> +use nix::unistd::User;
>> +
>> +use proxmox_sys::fs::{create_path, CreateOptions};
> 
> this alone here is probably causing 90% compile time ^^
> we really need to split proxmox-sys more, but that's orthogonal to this
> series
> 
true, IMHO at least the 'fs' part would warrant it's own crate

>> +
[snip]
>> +pub struct ServerConfig {
> 
> Lacks doc comments for members, please add some even if they're
> private.

sure

> 
>> +    name: String,
>> +    base_dir: PathBuf,
>> +    user: User,
>> +    privileged_user: OnceLock<User>,
>> +
>> +    task_dir: OnceLock<PathBuf>,
> 
> not sure if this should be an option, e.g., for simple CRUD
> API daemons there might not be any worker tasks at all.
> 

that's one reason i used OnceLock, since it's only created when either
one sets it manually, or access it the first time

but Option would work too ofc if that's preferred

> 
>> +    log_dir: OnceLock<PathBuf>,
> 
> maybe: access_log_dir (as this is the api access log that other

if we move it to rest server i agree, but otherwise i'd leave it more
generic (other daemons might have logging needs besides the access log)

> 
>> +    cert_dir: OnceLock<PathBuf>,
>> +    state_dir: OnceLock<PathBuf>,
>> +    run_dir: OnceLock<PathBuf>,
>> +    config_dir: OnceLock<PathBuf>,
>> +}
>> +
>