From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: <l.wagner@proxmox.com> 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 45E25976C7 for <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 17 Apr 2024 10:22:34 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 2F30E547 for <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 17 Apr 2024 10:22:34 +0200 (CEST) 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)) (No client certificate requested) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS for <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 17 Apr 2024 10:22:33 +0200 (CEST) Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 706C541A51 for <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 17 Apr 2024 10:22:33 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <b854bafd-2d7b-4207-977d-bd44e4561d1e@proxmox.com> Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2024 10:22:32 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird From: Lukas Wagner <l.wagner@proxmox.com> Reply-To: Proxmox Backup Server development discussion <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com> To: Proxmox Backup Server development discussion <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>, Gabriel Goller <g.goller@proxmox.com> References: <20240412100631.94218-1-l.wagner@proxmox.com> <D0I75C8MC22A.3VW3W55OFFXGY@proxmox.com> <f73e1a10-9e15-4f28-b1b5-7da2d04a5028@proxmox.com> Content-Language: de-AT, en-US In-Reply-To: <f73e1a10-9e15-4f28-b1b5-7da2d04a5028@proxmox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL -0.004 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 Subject: Re: [pbs-devel] [PATCH proxmox-backup 00/33] integrate notification system 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> X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2024 08:22:34 -0000 On 2024-04-12 16:09, Lukas Wagner wrote: > On 12.04.24 15:59, Gabriel Goller wrote: >> Another thing I noticed is that creating a datastore through the cli >> still uses the legacy notification system. >> > > Ah, thx! > On second thought: I think I want to use the 'old system' by default for anything that might be automated in some fashion (e.g. calling proxmox-backup-manager from a script, or creating a datastore via the API). Because a `proxmox-backup-manager datastore create ... --notify gc=never` (or an equivalent API call) would suddenly behave differently if we default to the notification system (--notify is ignored then). In the web UI it seems fine to automatically opt-in (we don't offer the option to change notification settings there anyway), but for the CLI/API I'm not sure if this is a good idea. We *could* have some magic approach which opts into the notification system iff - mailto-user is *not* set (we defaulted to sending to root@pam then) - notify is also *not* set But I'm not sure if I'm a fan of that - the 'auto' mode for backup jobs on PVE created enough confusion already, so I'd rather be more explicit here - even if that means that we have an opt-in approach until the next major release. -- - Lukas