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)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.proxmox.com (Postfix) with UTF8SMTPS id 55924753A1 for ; Fri, 4 Jun 2021 16:03:58 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with UTF8SMTP id 529911EB83 for ; Fri, 4 Jun 2021 16:03:58 +0200 (CEST) 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 UTF8SMTPS id A8E961EB75 for ; Fri, 4 Jun 2021 16:03:52 +0200 (CEST) Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (Proxmox) with UTF8SMTP id 7C3FF46724; Fri, 4 Jun 2021 16:03:52 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <96614e7a-f9fe-bb7f-313e-4dc3934b5a40@proxmox.com> Date: Fri, 4 Jun 2021 16:03:51 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:89.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/89.0 Content-Language: en-US To: Dietmar Maurer , Proxmox Backup Server development discussion References: <1669610747.49.1622814872295@webmail.proxmox.com> From: Dominik Csapak In-Reply-To: <1669610747.49.1622814872295@webmail.proxmox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.348 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment NICE_REPLY_A -0.603 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 Subject: Re: [pbs-devel] [PATCH proxmox-backup v2] client/pull: log snapshots that are skipped because of time 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, 04 Jun 2021 14:03:58 -0000 On 6/4/21 15:54, Dietmar Maurer wrote: > >> +impl std::fmt::Display for SkipInfo { >> + fn fmt(&self, f: &mut std::fmt::Formatter<'_>) -> std::fmt::Result { >> + if self.count > 1 { >> + write!( >> + f, >> + "{} snapshots ({}..{}) that are older than the newest local snapshot", >> + self.count, >> + proxmox::tools::time::epoch_to_rfc3339_utc(self.oldest) >> + .map_err(|_| std::fmt::Error)?, >> + proxmox::tools::time::epoch_to_rfc3339_utc(self.newest) >> + .map_err(|_| std::fmt::Error)?, >> + ) > > what is the purpose of this complex message (why we want to show self.oldest and self.newest)? > Its confusing me more than it helps... was the suggestion from Fabian, and i did like the idea to tell the user *which* snapshots were skipped (and if we only have one line, there is not many ways to represent that) > >> + } else if self.count == 1 { >> + write!( >> + f, >> + "1 snapshot ({}) that is older than the newest local snapshot", >> + proxmox::tools::time::epoch_to_rfc3339_utc(self.oldest) >> + .map_err(|_| std::fmt::Error)?, >> + ) > > do we really need this special case? if we want to keep the info which snapshots are skipped, then yes imho, otherwise we have line such as 1 snapshots (X..X) that are older than the newest local snapshot which is grammatically wrong (1 snapshots are older) and contains redundant info (X..X) > >> + } else { >> + write!(f, "0 snapshots") > > Instead, I would avoid to call this function if count is 0 ... i already avoid it calling below, but i wanted to implement this, in case we reuse that struct somewhere else > >> + } >> + } >> +} >> + >> pub async fn pull_group(