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 0C34F1FF13B for ; Wed, 25 Mar 2026 15:33:44 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 6FD8F1C882; Wed, 25 Mar 2026 15:34:05 +0100 (CET) Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2026 15:33:31 +0100 From: Gabriel Goller To: Stefan Hanreich Subject: Re: [PATCH proxmox-ve-rs 4/9] frr-templates: change route maps template to adapt to new types Message-ID: Mail-Followup-To: Stefan Hanreich , pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com References: <20260325094142.174364-1-s.hanreich@proxmox.com> <20260325094142.174364-7-s.hanreich@proxmox.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20260325094142.174364-7-s.hanreich@proxmox.com> User-Agent: NeoMutt/20241002-35-39f9a6 X-Bm-Milter-Handled: 55990f41-d878-4baa-be0a-ee34c49e34d2 X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp: 1774449163550 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.023 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 Message-ID-Hash: 3JWN2LXRAI632G6LGJZQNSK4PMCUP4JX X-Message-ID-Hash: 3JWN2LXRAI632G6LGJZQNSK4PMCUP4JX X-MailFrom: g.goller@proxmox.com X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; loop; banned-address; emergency; member-moderation; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header CC: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.10 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion List-Help: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: On 25.03.2026 10:41, Stefan Hanreich wrote: > Instead of defining every potential match / set type manually under a > different name, proxmox-frr now uses the Adjacently tagged > representation for representing key/value pairs for match/set actions. > This allows simplifying the route_maps template by simply rendering > the respective key / value fields. > > Signed-off-by: Stefan Hanreich > --- > proxmox-frr-templates/templates/route_maps.jinja | 12 ++++-------- > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/proxmox-frr-templates/templates/route_maps.jinja b/proxmox-frr-templates/templates/route_maps.jinja > index 172c682..19a6ee4 100644 > --- a/proxmox-frr-templates/templates/route_maps.jinja > +++ b/proxmox-frr-templates/templates/route_maps.jinja > @@ -3,16 +3,12 @@ > ! > route-map {{ name }} {{ routemap.action }} {{ routemap.seq }} > {% for match in routemap.matches %} > -{% if match.value.list_type == "prefixlist" %} > - match {{ match.protocol_type }} {{ match.match_type }} prefix-list {{ match.value.list_name }} > -{% elif match.value.list_type == "accesslist" %} > - match {{ match.protocol_type }} {{ match.match_type }} {{ match.value.list_name }} > -{% elif match.match_type == "next-hop" %} > - match {{ match.protocol_type }} next-hop {{ match.value }} > -{% endif %} > + match {{ match.key }} {% if match.value is defined %} {{ match.value }} {% endif %} > + Why is there a newline here? IMO if we add this it should be after the {% endfor %} as a separation between `match` and `set` statements. > {% endfor %} > {% for set in routemap.sets %} > - set {{ set.set_type }} {{ set.value }} > + set {{ set.key }} {% if set.value is defined %} {{ set.value }} {% endif %} > + And here? > {% endfor %} > {% for line in routemap.custom_frr_config %} > {{ line }} > --