From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <t.lamprecht@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))
(No client certificate requested)
by lists.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4A1BC7763F
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Tue, 20 Jul 2021 21:15:58 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 3F12ED831
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Tue, 20 Jul 2021 21:15:58 +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 id 8E92AD820
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Tue, 20 Jul 2021 21:15:56 +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 5AD0A423EF
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Tue, 20 Jul 2021 21:15:56 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <b6bf5862-951c-c064-3875-9540e069208c@proxmox.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2021 21:15:29 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.0
Content-Language: en-US
From: Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com>
To: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>,
Lorenz Stechauner <l.stechauner@proxmox.com>
Reply-To: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
References: <20210720115147.1988565-1-l.stechauner@proxmox.com>
<20210720115147.1988565-4-l.stechauner@proxmox.com>
<d47b9e67-4c8d-e095-c068-793be2b7bf22@proxmox.com>
In-Reply-To: <d47b9e67-4c8d-e095-c068-793be2b7bf22@proxmox.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0
AWL 0.417 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address
BAYES_00 -1.9 Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1%
KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment
NICE_REPLY_A -0.001 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
URIBL_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked. See
http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block for more
information. [status.pm, proxmox.com]
Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH storage 2/3] status: add new-filename to
upload
X-BeenThere: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel.lists.proxmox.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/options/pve-devel>,
<mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.proxmox.com/pipermail/pve-devel/>
List-Post: <mailto:pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
List-Help: <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel>,
<mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2021 19:15:58 -0000
On 20.07.21 15:27, Thomas Lamprecht wrote:
> On 20.07.21 13:51, Lorenz Stechauner wrote:
>> Signed-off-by: Lorenz Stechauner <l.stechauner@proxmox.com>
>> ---
>> PVE/API2/Storage/Status.pm | 10 ++++++++--
>> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/PVE/API2/Storage/Status.pm b/PVE/API2/Storage/Status.pm
>> index b549d7d..eac5e13 100644
>> --- a/PVE/API2/Storage/Status.pm
>> +++ b/PVE/API2/Storage/Status.pm
>> @@ -378,9 +378,15 @@ __PACKAGE__->register_method ({
>> content => {
>> description => "Content type.",
>> type => 'string', format => 'pve-storage-content',
>> + enum => ['iso', 'vztmpl'],
>
> unrelated change? That could be send as its own patch, does not even needs to be a
> part of this series.
>
>> },
>> filename => {
>> - description => "The name of the file to create.",
>> + description => "The original name of the file.",
>> + type => 'string',
>> + },
>> + 'new-filename' => {
>> + description => "The name of the file to create. Caution: This will be normalized!",
>> + maxLength => 255,
>
> new non optional API parameter would be an ABI break, 7.0 is released, that won't
> fly anymore for ~1.9 years ;-)
>
> Rather, make it optional and fallback to the filename (or whatever makes it
> actually backward compatible).
Intially I just saw the new non-optional param and ABI break was enough to comment
that, but after I took another glance here the new param seems rather bogus in general?
So, what's it actual use? Why is the existing `filename` one not enough?
It'd be good if such things would be stated in the commit message already..
>
>> type => 'string',
>> },
>> tmpfilename => {
>> @@ -414,7 +420,7 @@ __PACKAGE__->register_method ({
>> my $size = -s $tmpfilename;
>> die "temporary file '$tmpfilename' does not exist\n" if !defined($size);
>>
>> - my $filename = PVE::Storage::normalize_content_filename($param->{filename});
>> + my $filename = PVE::Storage::normalize_content_filename($param->{'new-filename'});
>>
>> my $path;
>>
>>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> pve-devel mailing list
> pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com
> https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel
>
>