From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from gate001.proxmox.com (gate001.proxmox.com [45.144.208.40]) by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 35C761FF0AF for ; Thu, 08 Oct 2026 16:57:37 +0200 (CEST) Received: from gate001.proxmox.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by gate001.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id C4630213A5; Thu, 08 Oct 2026 16:57:36 +0200 (CEST) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Date: Thu, 08 Oct 2026 16:57:32 +0200 Message-Id: Subject: Re: [PATCH many v2 00/34] notifications: add nested match expressions From: "Lukas Wagner" To: =?utf-8?q?Michael_K=C3=B6ppl?= , "Lukas Wagner" , , X-Mailer: aerc 0.21.0-0-g5549850facc2-dirty References: <20261001083706.144246-1-l.wagner@proxmox.com> In-Reply-To: X-Bm-Milter-Handled: 55990f41-d878-4baa-be0a-ee34c49e34d2 X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp: 1791471452810 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.352 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: WAPIIY7AT54M7HXQ3Y6MR4JFJ6MO75VI X-Message-ID-Hash: WAPIIY7AT54M7HXQ3Y6MR4JFJ6MO75VI X-MailFrom: l.wagner@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 Oct 7, 2026 at 11:32 AM CEST, Michael K=C3=B6ppl wrote: > 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? It shows up as modified if the entity on disk is different from the one that is baked into the application. In this series, we changed the default, so I think it makes sense if the config is shown as modified in these circumstances. What makes it slightly confusing is that the matching *behavior* stayed the same. Maybe I could change the code in proxmox-notify in such a way that not-modified built-ins are never serialized to the config, then any new default would be automatically picked up, and it would not be shown as modified. But I don't think this should be a blocker for this series, the 'modified' state is purely cosmetic here, it does not influence any behavior of the system. > - 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. > Will be fixed in v3, thanks! > 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 stac= k (**); >> so I guess it would make sense wait a bit before applying this -- just t= o avoid >> too many version bumps and too much maintainer churn. I have a patch ser= ies >> already in the works that builds on top of this one, so I would prefer t= o >> perform any non-trivial changes to this feature as follow-ups; rebasing = the new >> series I'm working on right now is a huge pain, as it moves a lot of cod= e >> around in proxmox-notify (preparations for proxmox-notify v2, essentiall= y) >> > > [snip]