From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <f.ebner@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 541206FCED
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 1 Sep 2021 13:02:40 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 424A82E058
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 1 Sep 2021 13:02:10 +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 2FBC62E049
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 1 Sep 2021 13:02:06 +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 003D14449B
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 1 Sep 2021 13:02:06 +0200 (CEST)
To: Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com>,
Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
References: <20210806125712.96863-1-f.ebner@proxmox.com>
<d8868feb-f751-71e2-de41-6021cb4dd27a@proxmox.com>
From: Fabian Ebner <f.ebner@proxmox.com>
Message-ID: <cff9d6db-d3b7-7a50-581c-6a560469de9d@proxmox.com>
Date: Wed, 1 Sep 2021 13:02:05 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/78.12.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <d8868feb-f751-71e2-de41-6021cb4dd27a@proxmox.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0
AWL 0.858 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 -0.932 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. [restenvironment.pm]
Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [RFC common 1/1] REST environment: add static
log_warn function
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: Wed, 01 Sep 2021 11:02:40 -0000
Am 23.08.21 um 18:22 schrieb Thomas Lamprecht:
> On 06/08/2021 14:57, Fabian Ebner wrote:
>> which can be called even when the environment is not initialized.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Fabian Ebner <f.ebner@proxmox.com>
>> ---
>> src/PVE/RESTEnvironment.pm | 12 +++++++++---
>> 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/src/PVE/RESTEnvironment.pm b/src/PVE/RESTEnvironment.pm
>> index 189a6cd..4278966 100644
>> --- a/src/PVE/RESTEnvironment.pm
>> +++ b/src/PVE/RESTEnvironment.pm
>> @@ -712,14 +712,20 @@ sub fork_worker {
>> return wantarray ? ($upid, $res) : $upid;
>> }
>>
>> -sub warn {
>> - my ($self, $message) = @_;
>> +sub log_warn {
>> + my ($message) = @_;
>>
>> chomp($message);
>>
>> print STDERR "WARN: $message\n";
>>
>> - $self->{warning_count}++;
>> + $rest_env->{warning_count}++ if $rest_env;
>> +}
>> +
>> +sub warn {
>> + my ($self, $message) = @_;
>> +
>> + log_warn($message);
>> }
>>
>> # Abstract function
>>
>
> The approach seems OK-ish in general to me, was there any off-list discussion against this
> or just not prioritized for review yet?
>
I can't remember any off-list discussion about this, but I'm wondering
two things:
1. Would adding an EXPORT_OK for the function be ok?
2. The following approach leads to a bit of duplication, but would
ensure that if a derived class overrides warn() then log_warn() will use
that one too. Should that be preferred?
diff --git a/src/PVE/RESTEnvironment.pm b/src/PVE/RESTEnvironment.pm
index 189a6cd..bf10040 100644
--- a/src/PVE/RESTEnvironment.pm
+++ b/src/PVE/RESTEnvironment.pm
@@ -712,6 +712,17 @@ sub fork_worker {
return wantarray ? ($upid, $res) : $upid;
}
+sub log_warn {
+ my ($message) = @_;
+
+ if ($rest_env) {
+ $rest_env->warn($message);
+ } else {
+ chomp($message);
+ print STDERR "WARN: $message\n";
+ }
+}
+
sub warn {
my ($self, $message) = @_;