From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <pbs-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com>
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [IPv6:2a01:7e0:0:424::9])
	by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 97B9B1FF15C
	for <inbox@lore.proxmox.com>; Wed, 19 Mar 2025 10:09:03 +0100 (CET)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 9102254A6;
	Wed, 19 Mar 2025 10:08:52 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <4ff622ce-23ff-4b9a-9336-7d8aa4c7c6f2@proxmox.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2025 10:08:49 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
To: Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com>,
 Proxmox Backup Server development discussion <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
References: <20250306145252.565270-1-c.ebner@proxmox.com>
 <20250306145252.565270-3-c.ebner@proxmox.com>
 <ab6d4eb5-4232-42c7-99c1-a15a2adcddcf@proxmox.com>
 <4a8a4f72-180b-42fc-bd46-f933a214d992@proxmox.com>
 <e0bc3b14-d1ee-4c73-a5d8-a4b21f809099@proxmox.com>
Content-Language: en-US, de-DE
From: Christian Ebner <c.ebner@proxmox.com>
In-Reply-To: <e0bc3b14-d1ee-4c73-a5d8-a4b21f809099@proxmox.com>
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results:  0
 AWL 0.031 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
 RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_CERTIFIED_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to
 Validity was blocked. See
 https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for more
 information.
 RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to
 Validity was blocked. See
 https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for more
 information.
 RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_SAFE_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to
 Validity was blocked. See
 https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for more
 information.
 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 v5 proxmox 2/8] pbs api types: add option to
 set GC chunk cleanup atime cutoff
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>
Reply-To: Proxmox Backup Server development discussion
 <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"
Errors-To: pbs-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com
Sender: "pbs-devel" <pbs-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com>

On 3/19/25 10:01, Thomas Lamprecht wrote:
> Am 19.03.25 um 09:48 schrieb Christian Ebner:
>> Given this I did check also the output in the docs, which however shows
>> the very unintuitive integer rage and default value.
>>
>> So given that, maybe it would be better to switch from an integer schema
>> to a string schema and parse the values as HumanTime?
>> Similar to what is done for the GC schedule.
> 
> That might indeed have some benefits UX wise, albeit I'm not 100% sure how
> good this is in  the web UI, or is there a pre-existing use case for
> HumanTime in the UI and thus ideally have already a nice validator there to
> provide quicker feedback to users if they enter something bogus.

I think this could be done in the schema validation function, but have 
to take a closer look.

> As the GC schedule is a calendar event, i.e. time instants not really time
> durations like HumanTime is, e.g. `daily` or `hourly`, which calendar event
> support would not make that much sense here.

Yes, these would definitely need to be excluded.

> That said, while I have some slight reservations those probably could be
> resolved with some frontend validation, and it probably would not get
> worse than plain minutes, albeit I'd expect that most people either will
> reduce this to the minimum of 1 to ensure GC collects chunks without
> references much faster or leave it as is, so not sure how much hassle
> this is worth it, at least for this specific duration setting.

Okay, will take a closer look, if it requires to much adaption we can 
keep it as integer schema (+ your improvement suggestions).


_______________________________________________
pbs-devel mailing list
pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com
https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pbs-devel