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 92A7A9018 for ; Thu, 24 Aug 2023 10:57:39 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 6BEC71FC24 for ; Thu, 24 Aug 2023 10:57:09 +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 ; Thu, 24 Aug 2023 10:57:08 +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 9678B43A38 for ; Thu, 24 Aug 2023 10:57:08 +0200 (CEST) Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2023 10:57:07 +0200 From: Wolfgang Bumiller To: Gabriel Goller Cc: pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com Message-ID: References: <20230822103603.130998-1-g.goller@proxmox.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20230822103603.130998-1-g.goller@proxmox.com> X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.101 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 #4343: updated `view_task_result` to bail on task failure 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, 24 Aug 2023 08:57:39 -0000 On Tue, Aug 22, 2023 at 12:36:03PM +0200, Gabriel Goller wrote: > Now we make an additional request on `api2/json/.../tasks/{upid}/status` to > get the `exitstatus` of the task. This allows us to `bail` and thus > get a non-zero exit code in the cli. > > Signed-off-by: Gabriel Goller > --- > pbs-client/src/task_log.rs | 27 ++++++++++++++++++++++++--- > 1 file changed, 24 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/pbs-client/src/task_log.rs b/pbs-client/src/task_log.rs > index 0bbb928d..4fb31fea 100644 > --- a/pbs-client/src/task_log.rs > +++ b/pbs-client/src/task_log.rs > @@ -64,10 +64,24 @@ pub async fn display_task_log( > let path = format!("api2/json/nodes/localhost/tasks/{upid_encoded}/log"); > let result = client.get(&path, Some(param)).await?; > > + let status_path = format!("api2/json/nodes/localhost/tasks/{upid_encoded}/status"); > + let status_result = client.get(&status_path, None).await?; > + ^ shouldn't `active` become false before this can happen? so can we not just do this once after the loop? > let active = result["active"].as_bool().unwrap(); > let total = result["total"].as_u64().unwrap(); > let data = result["data"].as_array().unwrap(); > > + if status_result["data"]["status"].as_str() == Some("stopped") > + && status_result["data"]["exitstatus"].as_str() != Some("OK") > + { > + bail!( > + "{}", > + data.iter() > + .map(|d| try_strip_date(d["t"].as_str().unwrap())) > + .fold(String::new(), |a, b| a + " " + b) ^ not a fan of `+` for string concatenation. `format!()` has at least a chance to figure out the lengths first, whereas with `+` you're technically doing multiple independent operations. Further, you're not adding the newlines in between like it happens from the use of `print` in the loop down below ;-) Also this seems to just use "whatever rest we had not printed yet" as an _error_ message. If we check the status after the loop, we could just use a generic bail!("task failed") as the output was already there. Unless there's a reason to do it this way instead? But I don't think we can really know how much of it even _is_ error text. We might be getting up to 500 (`limit` is 500) lines of random text :-) > + ); > + } > + > let lines = data.len(); > > for item in data { > @@ -76,9 +90,8 @@ pub async fn display_task_log( > if n != start { > bail!("got wrong line number in response data ({n} != {start}"); > } > - if strip_date && t.len() > 27 && &t[25..27] == ": " { > - let line = &t[27..]; > - println!("{line}"); > + if strip_date { > + println!("{}", try_strip_date(t)); > } else { > println!("{t}"); > } > @@ -127,3 +140,11 @@ pub async fn view_task_result( > > Ok(()) > } > + > +fn try_strip_date(log_msg: &str) -> &str { > + if log_msg.len() > 27 && &log_msg[25..27] == ": " { > + &log_msg[27..] > + } else { > + log_msg > + } > +} > -- > 2.39.2