From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <t.lamprecht@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 280C369483
 for <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Tue, 23 Feb 2021 18:01:06 +0100 (CET)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 15D18210C8
 for <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Tue, 23 Feb 2021 18:00:36 +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))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS id 08F30210B8
 for <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Tue, 23 Feb 2021 18:00:35 +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 BEB87462E4
 for <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Tue, 23 Feb 2021 18:00:34 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <16b17f26-ec37-fd9f-004d-2fd146a4d900@proxmox.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2021 18:00:33 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:86.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/86.0
Content-Language: en-US
To: Proxmox Backup Server development discussion
 <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>, Dietmar Maurer <dietmar@proxmox.com>
References: <20210223145403.2126-1-d.csapak@proxmox.com>
 <1716330912.3668.1614097567040@webmail.proxmox.com>
From: Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com>
In-Reply-To: <1716330912.3668.1614097567040@webmail.proxmox.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results:  0
 AWL -0.056 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address
 KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment
 NICE_REPLY_A           -0.001 Looks like a legit reply (A)
 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 17:01:06 -0000

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...