From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [IPv6:2a01:7e0:0:424::9]) by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E3E421FF183 for ; Wed, 13 Aug 2025 14:36:48 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id C59EB3430D; Wed, 13 Aug 2025 14:38:27 +0200 (CEST) From: Maximiliano Sandoval To: Fiona Ebner In-Reply-To: <2dd6c172-d3d4-4770-8b8e-0431d3209db6@proxmox.com> (Fiona Ebner's message of "Wed, 13 Aug 2025 14:31:25 +0200") References: <20250813110328.330900-1-m.sandoval@proxmox.com> <2dd6c172-d3d4-4770-8b8e-0431d3209db6@proxmox.com> User-Agent: mu4e 1.12.9; emacs 30.1 Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2025 14:38:23 +0200 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Bm-Milter-Handled: 55990f41-d878-4baa-be0a-ee34c49e34d2 X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp: 1755088671691 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL -1.201 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 ENA_SUBJ_ODD_CASE 2.6 Subject has odd case 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 URIBL_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked. See http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block for more information. [proxmox.com] Subject: Re: [pbs-devel] [PATCH proxmox 1/3] time: Add traits to DateTimeValue and TimeSpec X-BeenThere: pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox Backup Server development discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Reply-To: Proxmox Backup Server development discussion Cc: Proxmox Backup Server development discussion Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: pbs-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com Sender: "pbs-devel" Fiona Ebner writes: > Am 13.08.25 um 1:26 PM schrieb Maximiliano Sandoval: >> >> Maximiliano Sandoval writes: >> >>> which are useful for tests. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Maximiliano Sandoval >>> --- >>> proxmox-time/src/calendar_event.rs | 1 + >>> proxmox-time/src/date_time_value.rs | 2 +- >>> 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) >> >> In a support case we found a system with 40:00 as a schedule in a backup >> job. It is possible to entire this calendar event on the web UI. >> >> After this series the web UI won't allow it anymore with an error: >> >> ``` >> Parameter verification failed. (400) >> >> schedule: invalid format - invalid calendar event '40:00' - unable to parse calendar event at ':00' - Nom(Eof) >> ``` >> > > Note that we have the same behavior in Proxmox VE: > https://bugzilla.proxmox.com/show_bug.cgi?id=6161 > > If it is changed, it should be made consistent between products. > Unfortunately, this one got missed before the major releases, as one > could consider this a breaking change. The Proxmox VE web UI uses this crate so it would be consistent, I tested the change against it. I can do a v2 referencing the bugzilla entry, and add a test for "24:00" which returns an error with this patch (as it should). -- Maximiliano _______________________________________________ pbs-devel mailing list pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pbs-devel