From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <p.hufnagl@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 BA2489A54D
 for <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Fri, 13 Oct 2023 16:58:27 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 9617439E
 for <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Fri, 13 Oct 2023 16:57:57 +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) server-digest SHA256)
 (No client certificate requested)
 by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS
 for <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Fri, 13 Oct 2023 16:57:55 +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 72FE548F1D
 for <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Fri, 13 Oct 2023 16:57:55 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <24b3bcb3-0705-46a5-975e-7f9596715e4d@proxmox.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2023 16:57:54 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
To: Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com>,
 Proxmox Backup Server development discussion <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
References: <20231003140720.1635670-1-p.hufnagl@proxmox.com>
 <04c63a91-3e4c-43a8-855e-44c1680f366e@proxmox.com>
From: Philipp Hufnagl <p.hufnagl@proxmox.com>
In-Reply-To: <04c63a91-3e4c-43a8-855e-44c1680f366e@proxmox.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results:  0
 AWL -0.078 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
 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] fix #4971: client: Improve
 output on successful snapshot deletion
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, 13 Oct 2023 14:58:27 -0000



On 10/13/23 13:30, Thomas Lamprecht wrote:
> Am 03/10/2023 um 16:07 schrieb Philipp Hufnagl:
>> -    Ok(result)
>> +    println!("Successfully deleted snapshot {}", snapshot);
> 
> please use inline variables wherever easily possible for new code:
> 
> println!("Successfully deleted snapshot {snapshot}");
> 
> but I'm not sure if we actually want to print anything here, did you
> check what the other "action" (i.e., non-GET ones) do, If they all,
> or at least most of them, print such reports too it can be fine, but
> otherwise this would add inconsistency and simply doing nothing (i.e.,
> exiting with SUCCESS) would be enough.
> 

You are right! For example 'proxmox-backup-client snapshot notes
update' does not produce any output. Ill make a v 2 on Monday removing
the output!