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 3D721BC2B3 for ; Fri, 22 Dec 2023 10:45:45 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 212DA1B83 for ; Fri, 22 Dec 2023 10:45:45 +0100 (CET) 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 ; Fri, 22 Dec 2023 10:45:44 +0100 (CET) Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 601FC48C6B for ; Fri, 22 Dec 2023 10:45:44 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <437a089d-e8ae-44df-b8a8-ad611f22c2c6@proxmox.com> Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2023 10:45:43 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Content-Language: en-US To: Lukas Wagner , Proxmox Backup Server development discussion References: <20231218153638.609440-1-p.hufnagl@proxmox.com> <20231218153638.609440-5-p.hufnagl@proxmox.com> <79bc00aa-eb74-4c63-a757-c1fb703350bd@proxmox.com> From: Philipp Hufnagl In-Reply-To: <79bc00aa-eb74-4c63-a757-c1fb703350bd@proxmox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL -0.041 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 T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE -0.01 - Subject: Re: [pbs-devel] [PATCH proxmox-backup v5 4/4] tests: check if include/exclude behavior works correctly 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: Fri, 22 Dec 2023 09:45:45 -0000 On 12/19/23 14:23, Lukas Wagner wrote: > > > On 12/18/23 16:36, Philipp Hufnagl wrote: >> diff --git a/tests/sync_jobs.rs b/tests/sync_jobs.rs >> new file mode 100644 >> index 00000000..83877160 >> --- /dev/null >> +++ b/tests/sync_jobs.rs >> @@ -0,0 +1,34 @@ >> +use pbs_api_types::{ >> +    apply_filters, split_by_include_exclude, BackupGroup, >> BackupType, GroupFilter, >> +}; >> +use std::str::FromStr; >> + >> +#[test] >> +fn test_group_filters() { >> +    let group_filters = vec![ >> +        GroupFilter::from_str("exclude:regex:.*10[1-3]").unwrap(), > > Just FIY, since GroupFilter implements FromStr, you can use the .parse > method on the string: > > "...".parse::().unwrap(); > > The superfish (`::`) is probably not needed, since the type can > be inferred because you pass it to the split function ;) I'll try that. Thanks > >> +        GroupFilter::from_str("regex:.*10[2-8]").unwrap(), >> +        GroupFilter::from_str("exclude:regex:.*10[5-7]").unwrap(), >> +    ]; >> +    let (include_filters, exclude_filters) = >> split_by_include_exclude(Some(group_filters)); >> + >> +    let dont_backup = vec![ >> +        "vm/101", "vm/102", "vm/103", "vm/105", "vm/106", "vm/107", >> "vm/109", >> +    ]; >> +    for id in dont_backup { >> +        assert!(!apply_filters( >> +            &BackupGroup::new(BackupType::Vm, id), >> +            &include_filters, >> +            &exclude_filters >> +        )); >> +    } >> + >> +    let do_backup = vec!["vm/104", "vm/108"]; >> +    for id in do_backup { >> +        assert!(apply_filters( >> +            &BackupGroup::new(BackupType::Vm, id), >> +            &include_filters, >> +            &exclude_filters >> +        )); >> +    } >> +} > > Including tests is a great idea! I'd also add tests for all four cases: >   - no filters >   - only includes >   - only excludes >   - both > > Right now, you've only covered the 'both' case. > Yes, that makes the testing way more robust. Ill add this cases.