From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [212.224.123.68]) by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AB21D1FF16A for ; Fri, 30 Aug 2024 13:32:34 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 260B29B9C; Fri, 30 Aug 2024 13:33:04 +0200 (CEST) Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2024 13:33:00 +0200 From: Wolfgang Bumiller To: Dominik Csapak Message-ID: References: <20240809082525.864042-1-d.csapak@proxmox.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20240809082525.864042-1-d.csapak@proxmox.com> X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.087 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 RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_CERTIFIED_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to Validity was blocked. See https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for more information. RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to Validity was blocked. See https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for more information. RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_SAFE_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to Validity was blocked. See https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for more information. SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE -0.01 - Subject: [pbs-devel] applied: [PATCH proxmox] router: sort cli properties in usage output 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: , Reply-To: Proxmox Backup Server development discussion Cc: pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: pbs-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com Sender: "pbs-devel" On Fri, Aug 09, 2024 at 10:25:25AM GMT, Dominik Csapak wrote: > If we don't do this, then properties from a serde flattened struct will > be positioned at the end of the list, rather than properly sorted with > the other properties. > > Since the tests also feature non-sorted properties, we have to adapt > them too. > > Signed-off-by: Dominik Csapak > --- > i wanted to add tests for the serde flattened structs, but the test > don't use the api macro, nor serde, so i was not sure how i could > replicate that. If somebody has an idea for that, please tell, then > I'll send a v2 or follow up Those are just `AllOfSchemas` , you'd just have to make 2 `ObjectSchemas` and put them into an `AllOfSchema`. I do wonder, though, whether we want some way to declare "groups" for the documentation. Using a flattened structs might sometimes work, but probably not all the time. With this applied, flattened structs won't make a difference. But given that the visible portion of the struct in code doesn't represent the way it would be grouped anyway, we'd need a separate solution to declare groups anyway. _______________________________________________ pbs-devel mailing list pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pbs-devel