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 57D318A720 for ; Thu, 20 Oct 2022 15:00:18 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id F03B17EAC for ; Thu, 20 Oct 2022 14:59:47 +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 ; Thu, 20 Oct 2022 14:59:47 +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 F007244AB3 for ; Thu, 20 Oct 2022 14:59:46 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <3259764b-014f-b6f6-1cbd-b460fcef328c@proxmox.com> Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2022 14:59:46 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.3.0 Content-Language: en-US To: Wolfgang Bumiller Cc: pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com References: <20221020113731.266248-1-s.hanreich@proxmox.com> <20221020124835.uyfnpi6k2xeabr6p@casey.proxmox.com> From: Stefan Hanreich In-Reply-To: <20221020124835.uyfnpi6k2xeabr6p@casey.proxmox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.577 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 NICE_REPLY_A -0.001 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] fix #4301: correctly pass rate limit parameters to API 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: Thu, 20 Oct 2022 13:00:18 -0000 On 10/20/22 14:48, Wolfgang Bumiller wrote: > On Thu, Oct 20, 2022 at 01:37:31PM +0200, Stefan Hanreich wrote: >> With the old code the rate limit parameters got passed in their own >> dictionary under the limit key, but the API expects the rate-limit >> settings as top-level keys. This commit correctly sets the rate-limit >> parameters so the API actually uses them. >> >> Signed-off-by: Stefan Hanreich >> --- >> src/bin/proxmox-backup-manager.rs | 14 ++++++++++++-- >> 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/src/bin/proxmox-backup-manager.rs b/src/bin/proxmox-backup-manager.rs >> index 58e7e33a..cdd1037d 100644 >> --- a/src/bin/proxmox-backup-manager.rs >> +++ b/src/bin/proxmox-backup-manager.rs >> @@ -2,7 +2,7 @@ use std::collections::HashMap; >> use std::io::{self, Write}; >> use std::str::FromStr; >> >> -use anyhow::Error; >> +use anyhow::{Error, format_err}; >> use serde_json::{json, Value}; >> >> use proxmox_router::{cli::*, RpcEnvironment}; >> @@ -297,7 +297,6 @@ async fn pull_datastore( >> "store": store, >> "remote": remote, >> "remote-store": remote_store, >> - "limit": limit, >> }); >> >> if remote_ns.is_some() { >> @@ -320,6 +319,17 @@ async fn pull_datastore( >> args["remove-vanished"] = Value::from(remove_vanished); >> } >> >> + let args_map = args >> + .as_object_mut() >> + .ok_or_else(|| format_err!("args is not an Object"))?; > > ^ We create the `args` map only a few lines further up, so it would be > fine to just `.unwrap()` here. And it would be nicer to keep the access > short (iow move the `.as_object_mut()` down to where it's used for `.append()`) > Can replace it with unwrap(), shouldn't be a problem. The reason why I stored it in a variable was that with a subsequent patch I will also append another map to the args, but I could then just call .as_object_mut() twice, what do you think? >> + >> + let mut limit_json = json!(limit); >> + let limit_map = limit_json >> + .as_object_mut() >> + .ok_or_else(|| format_err!("limit is not an Object"))?; >> + >> + args_map.append(limit_map); >> + >> let result = client.post("api2/json/pull", Some(args)).await?; >> >> view_task_result(&client, result, &output_format).await?; >> -- >> 2.30.2