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.