From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <f.gruenbichler@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))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by lists.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5A01693B94
 for <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Tue, 20 Sep 2022 12:43:42 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 49B501AE85
 for <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Tue, 20 Sep 2022 12:43:12 +0200 (CEST)
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 <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Tue, 20 Sep 2022 12:43:11 +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 9A6D943868
 for <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Tue, 20 Sep 2022 12:43:11 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2022 12:43:04 +0200
From: Fabian =?iso-8859-1?q?Gr=FCnbichler?= <f.gruenbichler@proxmox.com>
To: Proxmox Backup Server development discussion
 <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>, Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com>
References: <20220920100848.145714-1-m.heiserer@proxmox.com>
 <1663669156.7myu5bwcpo.astroid@nora.none>
 <d081bcab-078e-97d5-4719-062f60af45d7@proxmox.com>
In-Reply-To: <d081bcab-078e-97d5-4719-062f60af45d7@proxmox.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: astroid/0.15.0 (https://github.com/astroidmail/astroid)
Message-Id: <1663670523.a17unliena.astroid@nora.none>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results:  0
 AWL 0.150 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address
 BAYES_00                 -1.9 Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1%
 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
Subject: Re: [pbs-devel] applied: [PATCH proxmox-backup] pbs-manager: fix
 pull not respecting local ns setting
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, 20 Sep 2022 10:43:42 -0000

On September 20, 2022 12:24 pm, Thomas Lamprecht wrote:
> Am 20/09/2022 um 12:19 schrieb Fabian Gr=C3=BCnbichler:
>> thanks for the quick fix!
>=20
> You were quicker (I wanted to amend the commit message a bit) and current=
ly
> wondering why that POST call went through anyway, as the extra unknown
> parameter should cause a higher level error?

I was looking in parallel based on the forum report and then saw the=20
patch coming in ;)

the API defaults to (silently) allowing additional properties, which is=20
why this is neither an error nor logged anywhere. this behaviour comes=20
from PVE IIRC.