From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [IPv6:2a01:7e0:0:424::9]) by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CD0871FF142 for ; Tue, 21 Apr 2026 14:57:33 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 9F0D523B35; Tue, 21 Apr 2026 14:57:33 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2026 14:57:29 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Beta Subject: Re: [PATCH proxmox-backup v6 11/15] server: pull: prefix log messages and add error context To: =?UTF-8?Q?Fabian_Gr=C3=BCnbichler?= , Christian Ebner , pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com References: <20260417092621.455374-1-c.ebner@proxmox.com> <20260417092621.455374-12-c.ebner@proxmox.com> <1776684473.p5hg4a1vym.astroid@yuna.none> Content-Language: en-US From: Thomas Lamprecht In-Reply-To: <1776684473.p5hg4a1vym.astroid@yuna.none> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Bm-Milter-Handled: 55990f41-d878-4baa-be0a-ee34c49e34d2 X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp: 1776776164828 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL -0.998 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 KAM_MAILER 2 Automated Mailer Tag Left in Email 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: QTSLGGLFD3WUTQCPXTBWKA5JYQXFJBE5 X-Message-ID-Hash: QTSLGGLFD3WUTQCPXTBWKA5JYQXFJBE5 X-MailFrom: t.lamprecht@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: Am 20.04.26 um 13:55 schrieb Fabian Grünbichler: > should we pad the labels? the buffered logger knows all currently active > labels and could adapt it? otherwise especially for host backups the > logs are again not really scannable by humans, because there will be > weird jumps in alignment.. or (.. continued below) IMO it might be better to keep these simple and plain and rather do any "touching up" on the frontend UI side when rendering such a log. For now that would need to be a parser for some specific task-log types to make them aware of the format, which is naturally not that great, in the mid/long term it might be much nicer to have some structured logging available for task logs, as then we could encode more info that a task log render could either render nicer or also allow filtering on. Am 20.04.26 um 13:55 schrieb Fabian Grünbichler: > the way the prefix and snapshot are formatted could also be interpreted > at first glance as a timestamp of the log line.. why not just prepend > the prefix on the logger side, and leave it up to the caller to do the > formatting? then we could us "{type}/{id}/" as prefix here? or add > 'snapshot' in those lines to make it clear? granted, this is more of an > issue when viewing the log via `proxmox-backup-manager`, as in the UI we > have the log timestamps up front.. ah, my comment above is partially overlapping with this part of the reply. And I'd also always prefix the time upfront, IMO a bit odd if it's in the "middle". But more importantly, I'd not sweat the details here that much and would rather target staying closer with pre-existing format (to avoid going back-and-forth), we can still improve on that later.