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 045551FF16B
for <inbox@lore.proxmox.com>; Thu, 3 Apr 2025 12:50:57 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 1D1B43D57C;
Thu, 3 Apr 2025 12:50:45 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <cb0b9f2e-da7a-4806-bb75-01ef97c7a2df@proxmox.com>
Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2025 12:50:12 +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>
<b747eae5-0a10-4219-b32e-9ac692443be6@proxmox.com>
<369cb438-f0bb-4d28-9db7-d6f45e76fd84@proxmox.com>
Content-Language: de-AT, en-US
From: Lukas Wagner <l.wagner@proxmox.com>
In-Reply-To: <369cb438-f0bb-4d28-9db7-d6f45e76fd84@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
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 16:33, Thomas Lamprecht wrote:
> Am 02.04.25 um 15:27 schrieb Lukas Wagner:
>> 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 }}`)
>
> The last one is really something where the "no breakage" means
> "no report from users", but I'm fine with that with smaller adaptions.
Yeah, I think the benchmark should be "all info is still there and readable" instead of
"every byte of text must be exactly the same" - the notifications are primarily meant to be
read by humans, after all :)
>
>> What do you think?
>
> Sounds about right.
>
> I'd probably also mention that we try to do changes by adding them as new
> variable/helper/... if the resulting maintenance burden is somewhat
> manageable, as with that we can then have co-existing old/new for a while
> (e.g., the current major release) and drop the old one in the next major
> release, which would simplify major upgrades combined with sharing templates
> be it through pmxcfs or some configuration management stack the admin uses,
> like Ansible, compared to rolling out such changes in one go with a major
> upgrade.
Good point, I agree.
Luckily I see the chances of us having to do incompatible changes to variables/helpers
as rather small, at least after this round of cleanups for PBS/PVE.
>
> This does not change what you state above w.r.t. what counts as breaking
> change and is not so much relevant for the consumers of that info (those
> overriding templates) but can be nice to state the general guideline for
> devs to roll out such changes there nonetheless.
--
- Lukas
_______________________________________________
pbs-devel mailing list
pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com
https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pbs-devel