From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <pbs-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com>
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [IPv6:2a01:7e0:0:424::9])
by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A7C8D1FF17C
for <inbox@lore.proxmox.com>; Wed, 2 Apr 2025 15:27:31 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 2B4A61B6DA;
Wed, 2 Apr 2025 15:27:20 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <b747eae5-0a10-4219-b32e-9ac692443be6@proxmox.com>
Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2025 15:27:16 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
To: Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com>,
Proxmox Backup Server development discussion <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>,
Alexander Zeidler <a.zeidler@proxmox.com>
References: <20250328102242.75539-1-l.wagner@proxmox.com>
<f6dbcec7-1d88-428f-9001-a9625dd5e302@proxmox.com>
Content-Language: de-AT, en-US
From: Lukas Wagner <l.wagner@proxmox.com>
In-Reply-To: <f6dbcec7-1d88-428f-9001-a9625dd5e302@proxmox.com>
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0
AWL 0.014 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
RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_CERTIFIED_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to
Validity was blocked. See
https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for more
information.
RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to
Validity was blocked. See
https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for more
information.
RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_SAFE_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to
Validity was blocked. See
https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for more
information.
SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record
SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record
URIBL_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked. See
http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block for more
information. [job.store]
Subject: Re: [pbs-devel] applied-series: [PATCH proxmox-backup v3 00/10]
notifications: cleanup in preparation of overridable templates
X-BeenThere: pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Proxmox Backup Server development discussion
<pbs-devel.lists.proxmox.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/options/pbs-devel>,
<mailto:pbs-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.proxmox.com/pipermail/pbs-devel/>
List-Post: <mailto:pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
List-Help: <mailto:pbs-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pbs-devel>,
<mailto:pbs-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=subscribe>
Reply-To: Proxmox Backup Server development discussion
<pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Errors-To: pbs-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com
Sender: "pbs-devel" <pbs-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com>
On 2025-04-02 14:45, Thomas Lamprecht wrote:
> Am 28.03.25 um 11:22 schrieb Lukas Wagner:> When the notification system was brought to PBS, the template strings
>> were moved to the template files as they were, without any changes.
>> The original templates were an implementation detail which were not
>> exposed to the user in any way.
>> They were bit inconsistent with regards to how template variables were
>> named (e.g. '{{datastore}}', '{{store}}', '{{job.store}}' for
>> referring to a datastore), as well es how variables/helpers
>> were accessed ({{ var }} vs {{var}}).
>>
>> With [#6143] on the horizon, notification templates, template variables
>> and template helpers become part of our public API and as such
>> we should provide some stability guarantees for them.
>
> Series seems alright to me, I'm just wondering a bit how that guarantee
> will look like? But probably better part of the series that is actually
> implementing [#6143].
I would suggest:
- no backward-incompatible changes in minor upgrades
- for breaking changes in major upgrades, implement some best-effort
checks in pbsXtoY/pveXtoY which check any custom templates for
anything that will be changed/removed
Incompatible changes are:
- removing variables
- changing type/representation of variables (e.g. switching from number of bytes to KiB, etc.)
- removing helpers
- non-trivial changes to a helper's behavior
- incompatible changes to the rendering engine (e.g. switching from Handlebars to something else)
Backward-compatible changes would be:
- adding new template variables
- adding new template helpers
- adding new, optional parameters to existing helpers
- trivial changes to helpers (hypothetical example: "1KiB" -> "1 KiB" for `{{ human-bytes 1024 }}`)
What do you think?
--
- Lukas
_______________________________________________
pbs-devel mailing list
pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com
https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pbs-devel