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 3FE9B1FF183 for ; Wed, 27 Aug 2025 22:15:54 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 8E2E128E38; Wed, 27 Aug 2025 22:15:55 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <589abdf2-3cb4-49b2-86e5-7d5468958a3c@proxmox.com> Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2025 22:15:52 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Beta To: Proxmox Datacenter Manager development discussion , Stefan Hanreich , Lukas Wagner , Dominik Csapak References: <20250826123336.3970108-1-d.csapak@proxmox.com> <20250826123336.3970108-4-d.csapak@proxmox.com> <9a42fbe4-9133-497c-a329-9c813ad684cd@proxmox.com> Content-Language: en-US, de-DE From: Thomas Lamprecht In-Reply-To: <9a42fbe4-9133-497c-a329-9c813ad684cd@proxmox.com> X-Bm-Milter-Handled: 55990f41-d878-4baa-be0a-ee34c49e34d2 X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp: 1756325747040 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL -0.029 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: Re: [pdm-devel] [PATCH datacenter-manager v3 3/9] server: api: resources: add more complex filter syntax 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" On 27/08/2025 11:33, Stefan Hanreich wrote: > On 8/27/25 11:16 AM, Lukas Wagner wrote: > > [snip] > >>> +fn remote_matches_search_term(remote_name: &str, online: Option, term: &SearchTerm) -> bool { >>> + match term.category.as_deref() { >>> + Some("remote" | "name" | "id") => remote_name.contains(&term.value), >>> + Some("type") => "remote".contains(&term.value), >> >> This is IMO a bit odd, since this would allow you to write something >> like >> >> type:e >> >> and still get type:remote matches, since e is contained in 'remote'. >> >> I think for some of these I would only allow a full match, 'type' and >> 'status' comes to mind at a quick glance (for status online, on, >> offline, off) could be allowed values) >> > > maybe a prefix match is a good compromise? that way one can start typing > 'type:remo' and get the results early without having to type out the > full status / type /... I think that would be a good compromise for now, that should be relatively easy to grasp and still give some benefits. _______________________________________________ pdm-devel mailing list pdm-devel@lists.proxmox.com https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pdm-devel