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 5B2B693BA4 for ; Tue, 20 Sep 2022 12:49:27 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 48D771AEDA for ; Tue, 20 Sep 2022 12:48:57 +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)) (No client certificate requested) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS for ; Tue, 20 Sep 2022 12:48:56 +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 F0A4E42459 for ; Tue, 20 Sep 2022 12:48:55 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2022 12:48:55 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:105.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/105.0 Content-Language: en-GB To: =?UTF-8?Q?Fabian_Gr=C3=BCnbichler?= , Proxmox Backup Server development discussion References: <20220920100848.145714-1-m.heiserer@proxmox.com> <1663669156.7myu5bwcpo.astroid@nora.none> <1663670523.a17unliena.astroid@nora.none> From: Thomas Lamprecht In-Reply-To: <1663670523.a17unliena.astroid@nora.none> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 1.072 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 -2.182 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 Subject: Re: [pbs-devel] applied: [PATCH proxmox-backup] pbs-manager: fix pull not respecting local ns setting 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, 20 Sep 2022 10:49:27 -0000 Am 20/09/2022 um 12:43 schrieb Fabian Gr=C3=BCnbichler: > On September 20, 2022 12:24 pm, Thomas Lamprecht wrote: >> Am 20/09/2022 um 12:19 schrieb Fabian Gr=C3=BCnbichler: >>> thanks for the quick fix! >> >> You were quicker (I wanted to amend the commit message a bit) and curr= ently >> wondering why that POST call went through anyway, as the extra unknown= >> parameter should cause a higher level error? >=20 > I was looking in parallel based on the forum report and then saw the=20 > patch coming in ;) >=20 > the API defaults to (silently) allowing additional properties, which is= =20 > why this is neither an error nor logged anywhere. this behaviour comes = > from PVE IIRC. That normally should require a explicit `additional_properties: true,` wh= ich we do not set here. The ObjectSchema has it set to false by default and P= VE's default is also false IIRC, resulting in a 400 error..