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)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B0E5B9C4FB for <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Tue, 24 Oct 2023 11:55:00 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 9A70A1E157 for <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Tue, 24 Oct 2023 11:54:30 +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)) (No client certificate requested) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS for <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Tue, 24 Oct 2023 11:54:30 +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 DE14144BD6 for <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Tue, 24 Oct 2023 11:54:29 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <fb844e0d-26ad-4a7c-a8e5-5d99c29c7b01@proxmox.com> Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2023 11:54:29 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Content-Language: en-US To: Lukas Wagner <l.wagner@proxmox.com>, Proxmox Backup Server development discussion <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com> References: <20231023154302.2558918-1-p.hufnagl@proxmox.com> <20231023154302.2558918-2-p.hufnagl@proxmox.com> <54f6b050-02ce-4443-a3f3-e28ee2b875bd@proxmox.com> From: Philipp Hufnagl <p.hufnagl@proxmox.com> In-Reply-To: <54f6b050-02ce-4443-a3f3-e28ee2b875bd@proxmox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL -0.072 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: Tue, 24 Oct 2023 09:55:00 -0000 On 10/24/23 11:18, Lukas Wagner wrote: > Hi, > > Also, some higher-level comments: > > The include/exclude behavior seems not super intuitive to me, as it > appears that the behavior depends on the order of the group-filter > config entries - e.g. "include all VMs" followed by "exclude VM 190" > has a different behavior than the other way round. In the GUI this is > not super obvious, and also there is no way to reorder the matching > rules. > > I would probably do it this way: > > no group-filters defined -> everything is included > only including filter -> only groups matching the filter(s) are > included > only excluding filter -> all groups but the matching ones are > included I am not 100% sure how I feel about including all as a starting point for exclusion filter. While I understand the intuitive benefit, it also may make the process more error prone, since removing 1 include filter may change everything to include all. User might not think of that. > including and excluding -> first compute included groups, then subtract > excluded ones > I considered this. The reason why I decided for only one list is because it enables user to make more sophisticated rules more easily. Having 2 lists that get processed after each other can make it much harder to filter on a complex setup. > Ideally, this behavior should be > a.) obvious in the GUI > b.) documented in the docs, with a few concrete examples > I see what I can do about explaining this behaviour better in the GUI and how to extend the documentation.