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 655D1BAB1A for ; Fri, 15 Dec 2023 10:44:02 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 457B714 for ; Fri, 15 Dec 2023 10:44:02 +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, 15 Dec 2023 10:44:01 +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 F379547989 for ; Fri, 15 Dec 2023 10:44:00 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <793f6689-3fb3-4319-b5c3-e12568b4f240@proxmox.com> Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2023 10:44:00 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Content-Language: de-AT, en-US To: Proxmox Backup Server development discussion , Philipp Hufnagl References: <20231204100414.152770-1-p.hufnagl@proxmox.com> <20231204100414.152770-2-p.hufnagl@proxmox.com> From: Lukas Wagner In-Reply-To: <20231204100414.152770-2-p.hufnagl@proxmox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL -0.004 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 v4 1/3] fix #4315: jobs: modify GroupFilter so include/exclude is tracked 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, 15 Dec 2023 09:44:02 -0000 On 12/4/23 11:04, Philipp Hufnagl wrote: > After some discussion I canged the include/exclude behavior to first run > all include filter and after that all exclude filter (rather then > allowing to alternate inbetween). This is simply done by sorting the > list (include first) before executing it. > > Since a GroupFilter now also features an behavior, the Struct has been > renamed To GroupType (since simply type is a keyword). The new > GroupFilter now has a behaviour as a flag 'is_exclude'. > > I considered calling it 'is_include' but a reader later then might not > know what the opposite of 'include' is (do not include? deactivate?). I > also considered making a new enum 'behaviour' but since there are only 2 > values I considered it over engeneered. > > Matching a filter will now iterate with a forech loop in order to also > exclude matches. > Short summary of our off-list discussion: I think this would be a good opportunity to factor out the 'Applying a set of GroupFilters to a list of existing BackupGroups'-part into separate helpers, allowing us to write some tests for the filter logic. This would make it much easier to argue about the correctness of the four cases (includes, excludes, both, none). -- - Lukas