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 868E28A884 for ; Thu, 20 Oct 2022 16:12:18 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 5E02218B97 for ; Thu, 20 Oct 2022 16:11:48 +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 16:11:47 +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 4F88044ACB for ; Thu, 20 Oct 2022 16:11:47 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <40c5146e-21eb-d781-bc2f-0cac60a522c4@proxmox.com> Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2022 16:11:46 +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> <3259764b-014f-b6f6-1cbd-b460fcef328c@proxmox.com> <20221020134415.j3nkaue2y5swctub@casey.proxmox.com> <149fd27c-0f87-47ac-b020-c428b228d335@proxmox.com> <20221020140602.sxzfyzajry25mqxq@casey.proxmox.com> From: Stefan Hanreich In-Reply-To: <20221020140602.sxzfyzajry25mqxq@casey.proxmox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.559 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 14:12:18 -0000 On 10/20/22 16:06, Wolfgang Bumiller wrote: > On Thu, Oct 20, 2022 at 03:50:59PM +0200, Stefan Hanreich wrote: >> >> >> On 10/20/22 15:44, Wolfgang Bumiller wrote: >>> On Thu, Oct 20, 2022 at 02:59:46PM +0200, Stefan Hanreich wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> 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? >>> >>> I suppose that's fine. If you already know such things while sending a >>> patch without the followups being part of the same series, you can note >>> such things after the `---` in the patch mail, that way it won't >>> needlessly end up in the commit message, but still be visible to the >>> reviewer. >>> >>> Come to think of it, there are a lot of `args[key] = value;` assignments >>> which could probably benefit from already having the `&mut Map` instead >>> of the `Value` enum. >>> >>> Maybe should change it like this >>> >>> - let mut args = json!(...) >>> + let mut args_value = json(!...); >>> + let args = args_value.as_object_mut().unwrap(); >>> >>> right where it is created, this way the unwrap will stay even closer to >>> the creation, the remaining assignments already see the object type, and >>> you can call append, too. >>> Finally, the `Some(args)` would need to be changed to `Some(args_value)` >>> in the `post()` call. >>> >> >> I will keep that in mind for future patches, thanks for the info! >> >> The problem is when assigning via args[key] = value on a Map, it actually >> panics if the key doesn't exist in the map [1], so I'm afraid this isn't a >> possibility unless I'm missing something. > > Can be changed to use `.insert()` ;-) yes, but I thought that would just be needlessly verbose since all `args[key] = value` would be replaced with some kind of ``` args.insert( key.to_string(), value.into() / json!(value) ); ``` I can definitely change it to use `insert()` in my subsequent patch if you want me to - just say the word ;)