From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [212.224.123.68]) by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E5F951FF187 for ; Mon, 22 Sep 2025 19:01:12 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 9BDAA20CAB; Mon, 22 Sep 2025 19:01:40 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2025 19:01:07 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Beta To: Proxmox VE development discussion , n.frey@proxmox.com References: <20250919093915.21641-1-n.frey@proxmox.com> <20250919093915.21641-4-n.frey@proxmox.com> Content-Language: en-US From: Thomas Lamprecht In-Reply-To: <20250919093915.21641-4-n.frey@proxmox.com> X-Bm-Milter-Handled: 55990f41-d878-4baa-be0a-ee34c49e34d2 X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp: 1758560455496 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL -0.027 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 RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_CERTIFIED_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to Validity was blocked. See https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for more information. RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to Validity was blocked. See https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for more information. RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_SAFE_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to Validity was blocked. See https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for more information. SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH pve-manager 3/5] api: add APT versions return schema X-BeenThere: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Reply-To: Proxmox VE development discussion Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: pve-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com Sender: "pve-devel" Am 19.09.25 um 11:40 schrieb n.frey@proxmox.com: > From: Nicolas Frey > > Signed-off-by: Nicolas Frey > --- > PVE/API2/APT.pm | 61 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++- > 1 file changed, 60 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/PVE/API2/APT.pm b/PVE/API2/APT.pm > index 0d07cf38..9a8406a8 100644 > --- a/PVE/API2/APT.pm > +++ b/PVE/API2/APT.pm > @@ -788,7 +788,66 @@ __PACKAGE__->register_method({ > type => "array", > items => { > type => "object", > - properties => {}, > + properties => { > + 'Arch' => { > + type => 'string', > + description => 'Package Architecture.', Could be an enum, and would not hurt to add other archs besides "all" and "amd64" here too, as while that are currently the only relevant ones for us, there are some community projects for arm64 and riscv64 (not sure if those are the exact architectures as Debian APT/DPKG uses them though, you need to confirm yourself) > + }, > + 'Description' => { > + type => 'string', > + description => 'Human-readable package description.', > + }, > + 'NotifyStatus' => { > + type => 'string', > + description => > + 'Version for which PVE has already sent an update notification for.', > + optional => 1, > + }, > + 'OldVersion' => { > + type => 'string', > + description => 'Old version currently installed.', > + optional => 1, The ordering of the keys feels a bit off, IMO it would be best to order them alphabetically, as that's probably the most useful order when browsing the code here, > + }, > + 'Origin' => { > + type => 'string', > + description => 'Package origin.', Including some examples what this might look like would IMO help a little bit even if we might not be able to specify a complete enum here. E.g.: "Package origin, e.g., 'Proxmox' or 'Debian'" > + }, > + 'Package' => { > + type => 'string', > + description => 'Package name.', > + }, > + 'Priority' => { > + type => 'string', > + description => 'Package priority in human-readable form.', The priority as per APT/DPKG is always in human readable form though? > + }, > + 'Section' => { > + type => 'string', > + description => 'Package section.', > + }, > + 'Title' => { > + type => 'string', > + description => 'Package title.', > + }, > + 'Version' => { > + type => 'string', > + description => 'New version to be updated to.', > + }, > + 'CurrentState' => { > + type => 'string', > + description => 'Whether the Package is installed.', > + format => '', The empty string for the format has not much use, could be a enum, albeit not 100% sure how future proof the variants from DPKG are (probably, but would need checking). > + }, > + 'RunningKernel' => { > + type => 'string', > + description => 'Kernel Release, only for Package "Proxmox Virtual Environment".', s/Release/release/ and if you refer to the value of another field, like with Package here, I'd use the actual value, like "proxmox-ve" here. > + optional => 1, > + }, > + 'ManagerVersion' => { > + type => 'string', > + description => 'Proxmox Virtual Environment Management Tools.', Similar w.r.t. referring to the relevant package name, i.e. I'd use "pve-manager" here. Like e.g.: "Version of the currently running pve-manager API server." > + optional => 1, > + } > + }, > }, > }, > code => sub { _______________________________________________ pve-devel mailing list pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel