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 938CEEC69 for ; Wed, 27 Sep 2023 17:32:02 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 6CA74E0D2 for ; Wed, 27 Sep 2023 17:32:02 +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 ; Wed, 27 Sep 2023 17:32:01 +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 2D11248E44 for ; Wed, 27 Sep 2023 17:32:01 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <22587f62-09e3-c217-24b3-f641585e7b53@proxmox.com> Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2023 17:32:00 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.15.0 Content-Language: en-US To: Thomas Lamprecht , Proxmox Backup Server development discussion References: <20230908133219.247294-1-g.goller@proxmox.com> From: Gabriel Goller In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.368 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 NICE_REPLY_A -1.473 Looks like a legit reply (A) 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 v3] fix #4343: updated `view_task_result` to bail on task failure 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: Wed, 27 Sep 2023 15:32:02 -0000 On 9/27/23 16:38, Thomas Lamprecht wrote: > Am 08/09/2023 um 15:32 schrieb Gabriel Goller: >> Now we make an additional request on `api2/json/.../tasks/{upid}/status` to >> get the `exitstatus` of the task. This allows us to `bail` and thus >> get a non-zero exit code in the cli. >> index 0bbb928d..709d0d08 100644 >> --- a/pbs-client/src/task_log.rs >> +++ b/pbs-client/src/task_log.rs >> @@ -96,6 +96,14 @@ pub async fn display_task_log( >> } >> } >> >> + let status_path = format!("api2/json/nodes/localhost/tasks/{upid_encoded}/status"); >> + let status_result = client.get(&status_path, None).await?; >> + if status_result["data"]["status"].as_str() == Some("stopped") >> + && status_result["data"]["exitstatus"].as_str() != Some("OK") >> + { >> + bail!("task failed"); > Hmm, while writing the changelog for a next bump I noticed that this > will now also exit with a failure-code when there are "only" warnings. > > Did you think about that case? > > Should we at least exit with different codes? I.e., so that tooling can > differentiate between error, meaning complete failure, and warnings, > meaning task probably did its main job, but something (recoverable) was > off. > > IMO one could also argue that it would be sensible to exit with SUCCESS > (0) even on warnings, as after all warnings should be only returned if > the main job of the task was still successful, but, e.g., some > deprecated config option was set or the like. Yes, submitting a new patch. Now we use exit code 0 (SUCCESS) on warnings as well.