From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: 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 379D29EB8E for ; Tue, 28 Nov 2023 13:53:07 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 102D516E83 for ; Tue, 28 Nov 2023 13:52:37 +0100 (CET) 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 ; Tue, 28 Nov 2023 13:52:36 +0100 (CET) Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 4BC1340E4D for ; Tue, 28 Nov 2023 13:52:36 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <0ab5578c-5224-4497-bea4-56e8f78a88e9@proxmox.com> Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2023 13:52:35 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Content-Language: de-AT, en-US To: Proxmox Backup Server development discussion , Philipp Hufnagl References: <20231128104022.240113-1-p.hufnagl@proxmox.com> <20231128104022.240113-2-p.hufnagl@proxmox.com> From: Lukas Wagner In-Reply-To: <20231128104022.240113-2-p.hufnagl@proxmox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL -0.008 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 T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE -0.01 - Subject: Re: [pbs-devel] [PATCH proxmox-backup v3 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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2023 12:53:07 -0000 On 11/28/23 11:40, Philipp Hufnagl wrote: > After some discussion I canged the include/exclude behavior to first run > all include filter and after that all exclude filter (rather then > allowing to alternate inbetween). This is simply done by sorting the > list (include first) before executing it. > > Since a GroupFilter now also features an behavior, the Struct has been > renamed To GroupType (since simply type is a keyword). The new > GroupFilter now has a behaviour as a flag 'is_exclude'. > > I considered calling it 'is_include' but a reader later then might not > know what the opposite of 'include' is (do not include? deactivate?). I > also considered making a new enum 'behaviour' but since there are only 2 > values I considered it over engeneered. > > Matching a filter will now iterate with a forech loop in order to also > exclude matches. > Already discussed off-list, but it seems like the case 'no include filters, but some exclude filters' does not yet work as expected. Intuitively, I would expect that the excludes are 'subtracted' from ALL groups then, but right now in that case no groups will be synced. -- - Lukas