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 ESMTPS id 1D0C4BAB2B for ; Fri, 15 Dec 2023 10:47:52 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id EA09B1FFEA for ; Fri, 15 Dec 2023 10:47:21 +0100 (CET) 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) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS for ; Fri, 15 Dec 2023 10:47:21 +0100 (CET) Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 127024798E for ; Fri, 15 Dec 2023 10:47:21 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2023 10:47:20 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Content-Language: en-US To: Lukas Wagner , Proxmox Backup Server development discussion References: <20231204100414.152770-1-p.hufnagl@proxmox.com> <20231204100414.152770-2-p.hufnagl@proxmox.com> <793f6689-3fb3-4319-b5c3-e12568b4f240@proxmox.com> From: Philipp Hufnagl In-Reply-To: <793f6689-3fb3-4319-b5c3-e12568b4f240@proxmox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL -0.043 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 T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE -0.01 - Subject: Re: [pbs-devel] [PATCH proxmox-backup v4 1/3] fix #4315: jobs: modify GroupFilter so include/exclude is tracked 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, 15 Dec 2023 09:47:52 -0000 On 12/15/23 10:44, Lukas Wagner wrote: > > > On 12/4/23 11:04, Philipp Hufnagl wrote: >> After some discussion I canged the include/exclude behavior to first >> run >> all include filter and after that all exclude filter (rather then >> allowing to alternate inbetween). This is simply done by sorting the >> list (include first) before executing it. >> >> Since a GroupFilter now also features an behavior, the Struct has been >> renamed To GroupType (since simply type is a keyword). The new >> GroupFilter now has a behaviour as a flag 'is_exclude'. >> >> I considered calling it 'is_include' but a reader later then might not >> know what the opposite of 'include' is (do not include?  >> deactivate?). I >> also considered making a new enum 'behaviour' but since there are >> only 2 >> values I considered it over engeneered. >> >> Matching a filter will now iterate with a forech loop in order to also >> exclude matches. >> > > > Short summary of our off-list discussion: > I think this would be a good opportunity to factor out the 'Applying a > set of GroupFilters to a list of existing BackupGroups'-part into > separate helpers, allowing us to write some tests for the filter > logic. This would make it much easier to argue about the correctness > of the four cases (includes, excludes, both, none). > I think that is a great idea! I will extend this patch series with a patch introducing testing!