From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [IPv6:2a01:7e0:0:424::9]) by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BF5B61FF183 for ; Wed, 8 Oct 2025 09:31:10 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 6A760274C4; Wed, 8 Oct 2025 09:31:15 +0200 (CEST) From: Hannes Laimer To: pdm-devel@lists.proxmox.com Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2025 09:31:07 +0200 Message-ID: <20251008073107.102213-3-h.laimer@proxmox.com> X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.47.3 In-Reply-To: <20251008073107.102213-1-h.laimer@proxmox.com> References: <20251008073107.102213-1-h.laimer@proxmox.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Bm-Milter-Handled: 55990f41-d878-4baa-be0a-ee34c49e34d2 X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp: 1759908639230 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.045 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 Subject: [pdm-devel] [PATCH proxmox-datacenter-manager 1/1] remote_updates: fix update info mapper X-BeenThere: pdm-devel@lists.proxmox.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox Datacenter Manager development discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Reply-To: Proxmox Datacenter Manager development discussion Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: pdm-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com Sender: "pdm-devel" With new PVE API spec we now have an enum for the arch field in the AptUpdateInfo struct. The PDM equivalent however does not, this fixes the mapping from the PVE one to the PDM one. Signed-off-by: Hannes Laimer --- server/src/remote_updates.rs | 5 ++++- 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/server/src/remote_updates.rs b/server/src/remote_updates.rs index f833062..ed26b11 100644 --- a/server/src/remote_updates.rs +++ b/server/src/remote_updates.rs @@ -77,7 +77,10 @@ fn map_pve_update_info(info: pve_api_types::AptUpdateInfo) -> APTUpdateInfo { APTUpdateInfo { package: info.package, title: info.title, - arch: info.arch, + arch: info.arch.to_string(), // TODO: we get an enum from the PVE API, we should probably + // also have one here. Ideally they'd share the same. Or we use the APTUpdateInfo directly + // when generating the PVE API types, assuming we can teach the generator to consider + // existing types it did not define itself. description: info.description, version: info.version, old_version: info.old_version.unwrap_or_default(), -- 2.47.3 _______________________________________________ pdm-devel mailing list pdm-devel@lists.proxmox.com https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pdm-devel