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 2DCB5694A2
for <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Tue, 23 Feb 2021 20:27:54 +0100 (CET)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 1F6F221F7D
for <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Tue, 23 Feb 2021 20:27:54 +0100 (CET)
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 0886121F6D
for <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Tue, 23 Feb 2021 20:27:53 +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 A3C03462B8
for <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Tue, 23 Feb 2021 20:27:52 +0100 (CET)
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2021 20:27:51 +0100 (CET)
From: Dietmar Maurer <dietmar@proxmox.com>
To: Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com>,
Proxmox Backup Server development discussion <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
Message-ID: <1644937938.10.1614108472151@webmail.proxmox.com>
In-Reply-To: <16b17f26-ec37-fd9f-004d-2fd146a4d900@proxmox.com>
References: <20210223145403.2126-1-d.csapak@proxmox.com>
<1716330912.3668.1614097567040@webmail.proxmox.com>
<16b17f26-ec37-fd9f-004d-2fd146a4d900@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 v7.10.4-Rev18
X-Originating-Client: open-xchange-appsuite
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0
AWL 0.116 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address
KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment
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] applied: [PATCH proxmox-backup]
api2/config/tape_backup_job: fix duplicate id parameter
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, 23 Feb 2021 19:27:54 -0000
Will fix this tomorrow - we need to set the #[fixed] attribute for id
> On 02/23/2021 6:00 PM Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com> wrote:
>
>
> On 23.02.21 17:26, Dietmar Maurer wrote:
> > applied
>
> did you read that part:
>
> On 23.02.21 15:54, Dominik Csapak wrote:
> > i am *really* not sure if this is the correct way @Wolfgang, is
> > there another wayt to selectively use the struct members for the
> > Updater?
>
>
> This makes the ID optional in the schema, which is weird for an API call
> with {id} in its url (which means that without ID this can never be reached).
>
> So not really an ideal fix, IMO, as the API schema gets basically wrong and
> possible confusing when suggesting this non-optional parameter is optional...