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 C2C6B6BAFA for ; Thu, 18 Mar 2021 11:21:13 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id B9319F9DF for ; Thu, 18 Mar 2021 11:21:13 +0100 (CET) Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (proxmox-new.maurer-it.com [212.186.127.180]) (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 40585F9D1 for ; Thu, 18 Mar 2021 11:21:13 +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 05068427B2 for ; Thu, 18 Mar 2021 11:21:13 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2021 11:21:12 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:87.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/87.0 Content-Language: en-US To: Dominik Csapak , Proxmox Backup Server development discussion References: <20210316115623.9368-1-d.csapak@proxmox.com> <20210316115623.9368-2-d.csapak@proxmox.com> <611140b4-dd43-2ecd-e03a-d7d93db979de@proxmox.com> From: Thomas Lamprecht In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL -0.046 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address 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) RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED -2.3 Sender listed at https://www.dnswl.org/, medium trust 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 2/3] server/email_notifications: do not panic on template registration 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: Thu, 18 Mar 2021 10:21:13 -0000 On 18.03.21 10:57, Dominik Csapak wrote: > On 3/17/21 20:38, Thomas Lamprecht wrote: >> On 16.03.21 12:56, Dominik Csapak wrote: >>> instead print an error and continue, the rendering functions will error >>> out if one of the templates could not be registered >>> >>> if we `.unwrap()` here, it can lead to problems if the templates are >>> not correct, i.e. we could panic while holding a lock, if something holds >>> a mutex while this is called for the first time >> >> how can they error? >> And any error (with or without this patch) would lead to emails notification not >> working anymore, some may seem this as quite fatal error if they do not get notified >> on erroneous jobs anymore? We may not be able to do much here, that's why above >> question about what the error source can be. > > they can error if they do not compile, e.g. they have syntax errors > while we should catch that during developement/reviewing, > if it does happen, it generates some weird behaviour > (for example panicing while holding a mutex) can't we just add a test for that instead, so that it is actually "compile checked" when building a package? Then such errors would be actually fixed before getting released, relying on review/test tends to fail and let slip something trhough sooner or later. > > with my patch, we still generate a warning, but aside from > sending notification mails (where we still would warn in the log) > the rest should work fine, there we can ofc also error out on > notification errors so that the tasks get an error > (but a well defined one instead of a panic) > > also we may want to put the templates into files in the future > so that users can adapt it and we can more easily change > them (maybe localize them?) > would need a sane reload mechanism then though, and in any way the one we ship should be tested for basic validity on build.