From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <pbs-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com>
Received: from gate001.proxmox.com (gate001.proxmox.com [45.144.208.40])
	by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4EF031FF150
	for <inbox@lore.proxmox.com>; Mon, 06 Jul 2026 14:28:35 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from gate001.proxmox.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
	by gate001.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 0376F21445;
	Mon, 06 Jul 2026 14:28:35 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <78a80f74-7418-4746-bd87-638ef250c5ee@proxmox.com>
Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2026 14:28:30 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
From: Robert Obkircher <r.obkircher@proxmox.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH proxmox-backup v3 12/15] tape: use proxmox-product-config
 helper for user lookup
To: Christian Ebner <c.ebner@proxmox.com>, pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com
References: <20260701140412.200920-1-c.ebner@proxmox.com>
 <20260701140412.200920-13-c.ebner@proxmox.com>
Content-Language: en-US, de-AT
In-Reply-To: <20260701140412.200920-13-c.ebner@proxmox.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Bm-Milter-Handled: 55990f41-d878-4baa-be0a-ee34c49e34d2
X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp: 1783340904817
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results:  0
	DMARC_MISSING             0.1 Missing DMARC policy
	KAM_DMARC_STATUS         0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict
 Alignment (newer systems)
	SPF_HELO_NONE           0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record
	SPF_PASS               -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record
Message-ID-Hash: IXDAPXNQ3A6KMWDSIW4EMQCOUWLXEB62
X-Message-ID-Hash: IXDAPXNQ3A6KMWDSIW4EMQCOUWLXEB62
X-MailFrom: r.obkircher@proxmox.com
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; loop;
 banned-address; emergency; member-moderation; nonmember-moderation;
 administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation;
 no-subject; digests; suspicious-header
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.10
Precedence: list
List-Id: Proxmox Backup Server development discussion
 <pbs-devel.lists.proxmox.com>
List-Help: <mailto:pbs-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:pbs-devel-owner@lists.proxmox.com>
List-Post: <mailto:pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:pbs-devel-join@lists.proxmox.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:pbs-devel-leave@lists.proxmox.com>


On 01.07.26 16:05, Christian Ebner wrote:
> By this the globally cached user information is used instead of doing
> a lookup to be consistent with the rest of the codebase.
>
> Tests are adapted to call the init exactly once by an init callback
> for a LazyLock. This is thread safe, so tests can be run in parallel
> without interference.
>
> [..]
>  
> +static PROXMOX_PRODUCT_CONFIG_INIT_FOR_TESTS: LazyLock<bool> = LazyLock::new(|| {
> +    proxmox_product_config::init(
> +        pbs_config::backup_user().unwrap(),
> +        pbs_config::priv_user().unwrap(),
> +    );
> +    true
> +});
> +
>  fn create_testdir(name: &str) -> Result<PathBuf, Error> {
>      let mut testdir: PathBuf = String::from("./target/testout").into();
>      testdir.push(std::module_path!());
> @@ -22,6 +31,8 @@ fn create_testdir(name: &str) -> Result<PathBuf, Error> {
>  
>  #[test]
>  fn test_alloc_writable_media_1() -> Result<(), Error> {
> +    assert_eq!(LazyLock::force(&PROXMOX_PRODUCT_CONFIG_INIT_FOR_TESTS), &true);
> +
>
> [..]
Wouldn't LazyLock<()> without the assert_eq work as well?