From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [212.224.123.68]) by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BCD371FF13B for ; Wed, 22 Apr 2026 17:29:09 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 2374724629; Wed, 22 Apr 2026 17:29:08 +0200 (CEST) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2026 17:29:05 +0200 Message-Id: From: =?utf-8?q?Michael_K=C3=B6ppl?= To: "Christian Ebner" , =?utf-8?q?Michael_K=C3=B6ppl?= , Subject: Re: [PATCH proxmox v4 02/30] pbs-api-types: sync job: add optional cryptographic keys to config X-Mailer: aerc 0.21.0 References: <20260420161533.1055484-1-c.ebner@proxmox.com> <20260420161533.1055484-3-c.ebner@proxmox.com> In-Reply-To: X-Bm-Milter-Handled: 55990f41-d878-4baa-be0a-ee34c49e34d2 X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp: 1776871657530 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.098 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 Message-ID-Hash: QU5M3WBKUICNWPXLIOUNW2OHRTOLUYJX X-Message-ID-Hash: QU5M3WBKUICNWPXLIOUNW2OHRTOLUYJX X-MailFrom: m.koeppl@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 List-Help: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: On Wed Apr 22, 2026 at 5:25 PM CEST, Christian Ebner wrote: > On 4/22/26 5:17 PM, Michael K=C3=B6ppl wrote: >> On Mon Apr 20, 2026 at 6:15 PM CEST, Christian Ebner wrote: >>=20 >> [snip] >>=20 >>> const_regex! { >>> @@ -664,6 +665,18 @@ pub const UNMOUNT_ON_SYNC_DONE_SCHEMA: Schema =3D >>> type: SyncDirection, >>> optional: true, >>> }, >>> + "active-encryption-key": { >>> + schema: CRYPT_KEY_ID_SCHEMA, >>> + optional: true, >>> + }, >>> + "associated-key": { >>=20 >> nit: this should probably be "associated-keys" > > this is not a typo but rather on purpose, please see the commit message= =20 > for the reason why this was chosen as is. Ah, I see. Misinterpreted that part of the commit message. Sorry for the noise. > >>=20 >>> + type: Array, >>> + description: "List of cryptographic keys associated with s= ync job.", >>> + items: { >>> + schema: CRYPT_KEY_ID_SCHEMA, >>> + }, >>> + optional: true, >>> + }, >>> } >>> )] >>> #[derive(Serialize, Deserialize, Clone, Updater, PartialEq)] >>> @@ -709,6 +722,10 @@ pub struct SyncJobConfig { >>> pub unmount_on_done: Option, >>> #[serde(skip_serializing_if =3D "Option::is_none")] >>> pub sync_direction: Option, >>> + #[serde(skip_serializing_if =3D "Option::is_none")] >>> + pub active_encryption_key: Option, >>> + #[serde(skip_serializing_if =3D "Option::is_none")] >>> + pub associated_key: Option>, >>=20 >> nit: same here >>=20 >>> } >>> =20 >>> impl SyncJobConfig { >>=20