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 B0E5B9C4FB
for ; Tue, 24 Oct 2023 11:55:00 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 9A70A1E157
for ; Tue, 24 Oct 2023 11:54:30 +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, 24 Oct 2023 11:54:30 +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 DE14144BD6
for ; Tue, 24 Oct 2023 11:54:29 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID:
Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2023 11:54:29 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
To: Lukas Wagner ,
Proxmox Backup Server development discussion
References: <20231023154302.2558918-1-p.hufnagl@proxmox.com>
<20231023154302.2558918-2-p.hufnagl@proxmox.com>
<54f6b050-02ce-4443-a3f3-e28ee2b875bd@proxmox.com>
From: Philipp Hufnagl
In-Reply-To: <54f6b050-02ce-4443-a3f3-e28ee2b875bd@proxmox.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0
AWL -0.072 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 1/3] fix #4315: jobs: modify
GroupFilter so include/exclude is tracked
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, 24 Oct 2023 09:55:00 -0000
On 10/24/23 11:18, Lukas Wagner wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Also, some higher-level comments:
>
> The include/exclude behavior seems not super intuitive to me, as it
> appears that the behavior depends on the order of the group-filter
> config entries - e.g. "include all VMs" followed by "exclude VM 190"
> has a different behavior than the other way round. In the GUI this is
> not super obvious, and also there is no way to reorder the matching
> rules.
>
> I would probably do it this way:
>
> no group-filters defined -> everything is included
> only including filter -> only groups matching the filter(s) are
> included
> only excluding filter -> all groups but the matching ones are
> included
I am not 100% sure how I feel about including all as a starting point
for exclusion filter. While I understand the intuitive benefit, it
also may make the process more error prone, since removing 1 include
filter may change everything to include all. User might not think of that.
> including and excluding -> first compute included groups, then subtract
> excluded ones
>
I considered this. The reason why I decided for only one list is
because it enables user to make more sophisticated rules more easily.
Having 2 lists that get processed after each other can make it much
harder to filter on a complex setup.
> Ideally, this behavior should be
> a.) obvious in the GUI
> b.) documented in the docs, with a few concrete examples
>
I see what I can do about explaining this behaviour better in the GUI
and how to extend the documentation.