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) server-digest SHA256)
(No client certificate requested)
by lists.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BBF1D9ACF5
for ; Mon, 16 Oct 2023 12:49:24 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 77370166F6
for ; Mon, 16 Oct 2023 12:48:54 +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) server-digest SHA256)
(No client certificate requested)
by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS
for ; Mon, 16 Oct 2023 12:48:53 +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 2599540FF6
for ; Mon, 16 Oct 2023 12:48:53 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID:
Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2023 12:48:52 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
To: Thomas Lamprecht ,
Proxmox Backup Server development discussion
References: <20231003140720.1635670-1-p.hufnagl@proxmox.com>
<04c63a91-3e4c-43a8-855e-44c1680f366e@proxmox.com>
<24b3bcb3-0705-46a5-975e-7f9596715e4d@proxmox.com>
<065d595d-0b3c-4c64-a675-6f951b7775ec@proxmox.com>
From: Philipp Hufnagl
In-Reply-To: <065d595d-0b3c-4c64-a675-6f951b7775ec@proxmox.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0
AWL -0.077 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] fix #4971: client: Improve
output on successful snapshot deletion
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: Mon, 16 Oct 2023 10:49:24 -0000
On 10/13/23 18:29, Thomas Lamprecht wrote:
> Am 13/10/2023 um 16:57 schrieb Philipp Hufnagl:
>> On 10/13/23 13:30, Thomas Lamprecht wrote:
>>> but I'm not sure if we actually want to print anything here, did you
>>> check what the other "action" (i.e., non-GET ones) do, If they all,
>>> or at least most of them, print such reports too it can be fine, but
>>> otherwise this would add inconsistency and simply doing nothing (i.e.,
>>> exiting with SUCCESS) would be enough.
>>>
>> You are right! For example 'proxmox-backup-client snapshot notes
>> update' does not produce any output. Ill make a v 2 on Monday removing
>> the output!
>>
>
>
> FWIW, I do not have anything about outputting such things, especially
> if other devs/users thinks that's fine, or even desired too.
>
> But, if we do more such things then a -q/--quiet flag could be nice, e.g.,
> to avoid stray output in scripts using those commands.
>
> That said, we can always add such output later after you fixed the weird
> Result { null } print, let's keep the scope small for now.
I think you are right here. Since other commands do not output
anything, this command should do that as well for consistency. I think
I should remove the output and we should consider a -v/--verbose flag
in the future.