From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: <p.hufnagl@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 693119D31C for <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 25 Oct 2023 17:07:37 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 4D8F91622B for <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 25 Oct 2023 17:07:07 +0200 (CEST) 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>; Wed, 25 Oct 2023 17:07:06 +0200 (CEST) Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 0A6D7461A8 for <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 25 Oct 2023 17:07:06 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <b42c40b6-b8f9-4269-9440-d527fb940b97@proxmox.com> Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2023 17:07:05 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Content-Language: en-US To: Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com>, Proxmox Backup Server development discussion <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>, Lukas Wagner <l.wagner@proxmox.com> References: <20231023154302.2558918-1-p.hufnagl@proxmox.com> <20231023154302.2558918-2-p.hufnagl@proxmox.com> <54f6b050-02ce-4443-a3f3-e28ee2b875bd@proxmox.com> <fb844e0d-26ad-4a7c-a8e5-5d99c29c7b01@proxmox.com> <d9a94b91-e13a-470e-87c9-a600d7cb9d10@proxmox.com> <dc0cc081-ee54-4016-af3f-9a372faba9d1@proxmox.com> <69df7927-de20-4301-a785-2a57d53fcf2b@proxmox.com> From: Philipp Hufnagl <p.hufnagl@proxmox.com> In-Reply-To: <69df7927-de20-4301-a785-2a57d53fcf2b@proxmox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL -0.069 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 Subject: Re: [pbs-devel] [PATCH proxmox-backup 1/3] fix #4315: jobs: modify GroupFilter so include/exclude is tracked 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: Wed, 25 Oct 2023 15:07:37 -0000 On 10/25/23 15:33, Thomas Lamprecht wrote: > Am 24/10/2023 um 16:32 schrieb Philipp Hufnagl: >> >> >> On 10/24/23 12:43, Lukas Wagner wrote: >> >>> Do you have any examples in mind that would be more difficult to >>> represent? >> >> I would like to include all vms from 10 to to 30, but not 17,18 and 20. >> > > How is that more difficult? > > IMO Lukas proposal seems reasonable, a deterministic remove matches from > excludes fromm all matches from includes seems easier to understand, > from top of my head. You would have to do something like include 10-30 exclude 17 exclude 18 exclude 20 instead of include 10-30 exclude 17-20 include 19 While the first is easier to understand, the 2nd one allows (in my opinion) to build a cleaner solution for complex filtering. However both are in my opinion fine solutions. I you think having 2 lists is a better solution I can implement that as well.