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