From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <pdm-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com>
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [212.224.123.68])
by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 59EA31FF164
for <inbox@lore.proxmox.com>; Fri, 11 Apr 2025 10:03:28 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 6E791B9ED;
Fri, 11 Apr 2025 10:03:23 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <0ef390cb-95a9-4d99-bae5-99a5a775effb@proxmox.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2025 10:03:19 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
To: Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com>,
Proxmox Datacenter Manager development discussion
<pdm-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
References: <20250314141225.240768-1-l.wagner@proxmox.com>
<20250314141225.240768-6-l.wagner@proxmox.com>
<9947a9f1-bd50-4ae5-90d9-203dff5b0cb7@proxmox.com>
Content-Language: de-AT, en-US
From: Lukas Wagner <l.wagner@proxmox.com>
In-Reply-To: <9947a9f1-bd50-4ae5-90d9-203dff5b0cb7@proxmox.com>
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0
AWL 0.013 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
URIBL_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked. See
http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block for more
information. [rust-lang.org]
Subject: Re: [pdm-devel] [PATCH proxmox-datacenter-manager 5/8] remote
tasks: add background task for task polling, use new task cache
X-BeenThere: pdm-devel@lists.proxmox.com
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Proxmox Datacenter Manager development discussion
<pdm-devel.lists.proxmox.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/options/pdm-devel>,
<mailto:pdm-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.proxmox.com/pipermail/pdm-devel/>
List-Post: <mailto:pdm-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
List-Help: <mailto:pdm-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pdm-devel>,
<mailto:pdm-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=subscribe>
Reply-To: Proxmox Datacenter Manager development discussion
<pdm-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Errors-To: pdm-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com
Sender: "pdm-devel" <pdm-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com>
On 2025-03-20 18:39, Thomas Lamprecht wrote:
[...]
>>
>> use crate::{api::pve, task_utils};
>>
>> mod task_cache;
>>
>> +const REMOTE_TASKS_DIR: &str = concat!(pdm_buildcfg::PDM_CACHE_DIR_M!(), "/remote-tasks");
>> +
>> +const SECONDS_PER_MINUTE: u64 = 60;
>> +const MINUTES_PER_HOUR: u64 = 60;
> While technically correct this reads like a rate and makes it IMO a bit
> harder to tell what is meant in below calculations.
>
> I'd either use Duration from std, like e.g. Duration::from_mins(10).as_secs()
> and Duration::from_hours(1).as_secs() respectively for REGULAR_REFRESH_S and
> CHECK_ROTATE_S below or just 60 and 3600, those values are pretty much general
> knowledge, which might be a part of the confusion potential I see in your
> variant, as I basically expect that this has to be something more elaborate or
> why would it go for this seemingly complex variant.
> That said, using what the std lib already provides is totally fine here.
>
Finally got the time to incorporate your feedback for a v2.
As it turns out, Duration::from_mins/from_hours is actually
still nightly-only...
https://doc.rust-lang.org/std/time/struct.Duration.html#method.from_mins
Anyway, I'll still change these up a bit; I'll use `Duration` for anything
that is a time interval and then use `Duration::as_secs` for
the cycle calculations. This should make it a bit more idiomatic and
less error-prone.
--
- Lukas
_______________________________________________
pdm-devel mailing list
pdm-devel@lists.proxmox.com
https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pdm-devel