From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from gate001.proxmox.com (gate001.proxmox.com [IPv6:2a0f:8001:1:32::40]) by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A1EC11FF0AB for ; Wed, 07 Oct 2026 11:32:23 +0200 (CEST) Received: from gate001.proxmox.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by gate001.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id EFA2B21226; Wed, 07 Oct 2026 11:32:21 +0200 (CEST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Date: Wed, 07 Oct 2026 11:32:16 +0200 Message-Id: Subject: Re: [PATCH many v2 00/34] notifications: add nested match expressions From: =?utf-8?q?Michael_K=C3=B6ppl?= To: "Lukas Wagner" , , Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Mailer: aerc 0.22.0 References: <20261001083706.144246-1-l.wagner@proxmox.com> In-Reply-To: <20261001083706.144246-1-l.wagner@proxmox.com> X-Bm-Milter-Handled: 55990f41-d878-4baa-be0a-ee34c49e34d2 X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp: 1791365536758 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.309 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address DMARC_MISSING 0.1 Missing DMARC policy KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment (newer systems) RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED -2.3 Sender listed at https://www.dnswl.org/, medium trust 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: 4O7YSUMX6IXJAZI66XIKOPEVMREMPEA6 X-Message-ID-Hash: 4O7YSUMX6IXJAZI66XIKOPEVMREMPEA6 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: Tested this on a 3-node cluster: - upgrading the nodes one after another, checking in between what happens when an upgraded node persists config changes (see comment on 15/34) - playing with various different expressions through both the UI and pvesh, combining sub-rules and checking that the "quantifiers" for the sub-rules work as expected Wanted to note a few things I noticed so far, both not a big deal: - Is it on purpose that after migrating to the new config format, the origin of the default-matcher is shown as "built-in modified"? Isn't it a bit misleading to show it as modified if the user never changed anything? - Entering 0:00 instead of 00:00 for the Match Calender rule type highlights the input field in red, but the "Add" button can still be pressed and a request will be sent, attempting to add a Match Calendar rule with -23:59, resulting in an error message from the backend. Some other observations I added on the individual patches since I've been looking into the implementation anyway. On Thu Oct 1, 2026 at 10:36 AM CEST, Lukas Wagner wrote: > NOTE: I have a couple of other patches planned for the notification stack= (**); > so I guess it would make sense wait a bit before applying this -- just to= avoid > too many version bumps and too much maintainer churn. I have a patch seri= es > already in the works that builds on top of this one, so I would prefer to > perform any non-trivial changes to this feature as follow-ups; rebasing t= he new > series I'm working on right now is a huge pain, as it moves a lot of code > around in proxmox-notify (preparations for proxmox-notify v2, essentially= ) > [snip]