From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <dietmar@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 679C360F93
 for <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Fri,  4 Sep 2020 07:32:07 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 4F56B1D5B2
 for <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Fri,  4 Sep 2020 07:32:07 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (proxmox-new.maurer-it.com
 [212.186.127.180])
 (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 9BFA91D5A5
 for <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Fri,  4 Sep 2020 07:32:06 +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 65482449EC
 for <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Fri,  4 Sep 2020 07:32:06 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2020 07:31:23 +0200 (CEST)
From: Dietmar Maurer <dietmar@proxmox.com>
To: Proxmox Backup Server development discussion <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>, 
 Dominik Csapak <d.csapak@proxmox.com>
Message-ID: <1055079420.717.1599197484188@webmail.proxmox.com>
In-Reply-To: <20200903114000.6932-8-d.csapak@proxmox.com>
References: <20200903114000.6932-1-d.csapak@proxmox.com>
 <20200903114000.6932-8-d.csapak@proxmox.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
Importance: Normal
X-Mailer: Open-Xchange Mailer v7.10.3-Rev21
X-Originating-Client: open-xchange-appsuite
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results:  0
 AWL -0.147 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address
 KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment
 KAM_NUMSUBJECT 0.5 Subject ends in numbers excluding current years
 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED        -2.3 Sender listed at https://www.dnswl.org/,
 medium trust
 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 07/10] tools/systemd/time:
 use i32 for DateTimeValues instead of u32
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: Fri, 04 Sep 2020 05:32:07 -0000

> for most of the fields it does not matter
> (mon,day,hour,min,sec)
> 
> but for years it matters, since negative years in a tm struct are valid
> so to be able to handle that, convert those to i32

Sorry, but how can we get negative years? Simply disallow that is easier?

> on parsing, we never allow negative numbers anyway
> 
> also, this way we can drop the manual casts (which would have been very
> wrong if the underlying tm struct would have contained negative values)

I suggest to use try_from instead.