From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: <d.csapak@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 B08BD63213 for <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 15 Jul 2020 10:31:53 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id A55D12D60A for <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 15 Jul 2020 10:31:53 +0200 (CEST) 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 2A9262D600 for <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 15 Jul 2020 10:31:53 +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 DD8B743120; Wed, 15 Jul 2020 10:31:52 +0200 (CEST) To: pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com, =?UTF-8?Q?Fabian_Gr=c3=bcnbichler?= <f.gruenbichler@proxmox.com> References: <20200714110957.31884-1-d.csapak@proxmox.com> <1594800868.gpoilatxdp.astroid@nora.none> From: Dominik Csapak <d.csapak@proxmox.com> Message-ID: <3d3721e0-acd8-3876-7288-aab3c142e7be@proxmox.com> Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2020 10:31:52 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <1594800868.gpoilatxdp.astroid@nora.none> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.723 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 URIBL_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked. See http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block for more information. [vec.rs, websocket.rs, router.rs] Subject: Re: [pbs-devel] [PATCH proxmox 0/9] preparation for websocket api 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: Wed, 15 Jul 2020 08:31:53 -0000 On 7/15/20 10:15 AM, Fabian Grünbichler wrote: > $ cargo test > [...] > test src/api/const_regex.rs - const_regex (line 32) ... ok > test src/tools/vec.rs - tools::vec (line 19) ... ok > test src/api/router.rs - api::router::Router (line 216) ... ok > test src/tools/websocket.rs - tools::websocket::FrameHeader::try_from_bytes (line 301) ... FAILED > test src/tools/websocket.rs - tools::websocket::create_frame (line 112) ... FAILED > test src/tools/websocket.rs - tools::websocket::create_frame (line 125) ... FAILED > test src/tools/websocket.rs - tools::websocket::WebSocketWriter (line 182) ... ok > test src/tools/websocket.rs - tools::websocket::create_frame (line 99) ... FAILED > test src/tools/vec/byte_vec.rs - tools::vec::byte_vec (line 4) ... ok > test src/tools/vec/byte_vec.rs - tools::vec::byte_vec::ByteVecExt (line 15) ... ok > test src/tools/vec/byte_vec.rs - tools::vec::byte_vec::ByteVecExt::grow_uninitialized (line 51) ... ok > [...] > > ? > yes, sorry. seems i forgot to run the tests after changing the create_frame interface.... i'll send a v2 of that patch (6/9; or should i send the whole series again?)