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 A3C026011D for ; Tue, 1 Feb 2022 14:26:44 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 9816274C for ; Tue, 1 Feb 2022 14:26:44 +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)) (No client certificate requested) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS id 2E744740 for ; Tue, 1 Feb 2022 14:26:44 +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 F3DC442780 for ; Tue, 1 Feb 2022 14:26:43 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2022 14:26:43 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:97.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/97.0 Content-Language: en-US To: Matthias Heiserer , Proxmox Backup Server development discussion , Dominik Csapak References: <20220117104825.2409598-1-d.csapak@proxmox.com> <5d90898e-3451-0072-3d81-e7cb58e0e721@proxmox.com> <3fca0bf0-c173-4a03-4f97-9c8d7f492c87@proxmox.com> From: Thomas Lamprecht In-Reply-To: <3fca0bf0-c173-4a03-4f97-9c8d7f492c87@proxmox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.061 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address BAYES_00 -1.9 Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment NICE_REPLY_A -0.001 Looks like a legit reply (A) 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/proxmox-backup v4] add metrics server capability 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: Tue, 01 Feb 2022 13:26:44 -0000 On 01.02.22 14:22, Matthias Heiserer wrote: > On 01.02.2022 12:39, Thomas Lamprecht wrote: >> On 01.02.22 12:01, Matthias Heiserer wrote: >>> Some personal preferences: I'd prefer if "api get" showed whether a token was >>> set in the config, instead of leaving the field blank. >> >> Hard to do "inline" as tokens are free-form, the cleanest way would to report >> an extra boolean property on GET ("token-set"). > > Not sure if I understand you correctly. We know whether a token is present by its variant, i.e. Some or None. Couldn't we just map the token to e.g. "1"? Sure, the sending site (backend) knows, but for the receiving it'll be always confusing as it would need to make assumptions of how the implementation works (coupling). IMO it's just not ideal to multiplex such things.