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) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by lists.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AF87D62DDA for ; Wed, 23 Feb 2022 09:31:34 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 9D02D2BE13 for ; Wed, 23 Feb 2022 09:31:04 +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 id 290512BE09 for ; Wed, 23 Feb 2022 09:31:04 +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 EF82B46340 for ; Wed, 23 Feb 2022 09:31:03 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <5c043fdd-de17-f54e-c117-c0d51471d16a@proxmox.com> Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2022 09:31:03 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:98.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/98.0 Content-Language: en-US To: Proxmox Backup Server development discussion , Wolfgang Bumiller References: <20220222084717.60064-1-w.bumiller@proxmox.com> From: Thomas Lamprecht In-Reply-To: <20220222084717.60064-1-w.bumiller@proxmox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.058 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 T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE -0.01 - Subject: Re: [pbs-devel] [PATCH proxmox] schema: add const fn unwrap_*_schema/format methods 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: Wed, 23 Feb 2022 08:31:34 -0000 On 22.02.22 09:47, Wolfgang Bumiller wrote: > 'unwrap_' because they will panic and as `const fn` since > panic in const fn is now possible > > Note that const evaluation will only be triggered when > actually used in const context, so to ensure *compile time* > checks, use something like this: > > const FOO_SCHEMA: &AllOfSchema = > SomeType::API_SCHEMA.unwrap_all_of_schema(); > then_use(FOO_SCHEMA); > > or to use the list of enum values of an enum string type > with compile time checks: > > const LIST: &'static [EnumEntry] = > AnEnumStringType::API_SCHEMA > .unwrap_string_schema() > .unwrap_format() > .unwrap_enum_format(); > for values in LIST { > ... > } > > Signed-off-by: Wolfgang Bumiller > --- > While schemas are usually unlikely to change type or lose properties > such as enum lists, for `ObjectSchema` and `AllOfSchema` this may > actually allow catching future issues at build-time... > > If we want to do this, I'd prepare a similar patch set for all the > `ApiHandler::...` value extractions we do in the CLI in pbs (just look > at the output of `egrep -B1 -nr 'unreachable' ./src ./*/src` in pbs ;-) ) > IMO the usage gets nicer, lots of removal of unreachable!(), and even if not used correctly (without const) we're as good as now; so can only win. If there's no objection from others I'd say: go for it.