From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <d.csapak@proxmox.com>
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 <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; 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 <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; 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 <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; 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 <dietmar@proxmox.com>,
Proxmox Backup Server development discussion <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
References: <1669610747.49.1622814872295@webmail.proxmox.com>
From: Dominik Csapak <d.csapak@proxmox.com>
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
<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>
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(