From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <pdm-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com>
Received: from gate001.proxmox.com (gate001.proxmox.com [IPv6:2a0f:8001:1:32::40])
	by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E76711FF0EA
	for <inbox@lore.proxmox.com>; Fri, 14 Aug 2026 15:18:13 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from gate001.proxmox.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
	by gate001.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 84BD9225E6;
	Fri, 14 Aug 2026 15:18:13 +0200 (CEST)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2026 15:18:09 +0200
Message-Id: <DKOP2LPK030C.R4D2R3OPB8G0@proxmox.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH datacenter-manager v2 12/16] pdm-api-types: add
 staged_fingerprints field to NodeUrl
From: "Thomas Ellmenreich" <t.ellmenreich@proxmox.com>
To: "Shannon Sterz" <s.sterz@proxmox.com>, <pdm-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
X-Mailer: aerc 0.20.0
References: <20260805131838.254723-2-s.sterz@proxmox.com>
 <20260805131838.254723-14-s.sterz@proxmox.com>
In-Reply-To: <20260805131838.254723-14-s.sterz@proxmox.com>
X-Bm-Milter-Handled: 55990f41-d878-4baa-be0a-ee34c49e34d2
X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp: 1786713470978
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results:  0
	AWL                     0.107 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From:
 address
	DMARC_MISSING             0.1 Missing DMARC policy
	KAM_DMARC_STATUS         0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict
 Alignment (newer systems)
	RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED        -2.3 Sender listed at https://www.dnswl.org/,
 medium trust
	RDNS_NONE               1.274 Delivered to internal network by a host with no
 rDNS
	SPF_HELO_NONE           0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record
	SPF_PASS               -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record
Message-ID-Hash: GZGUBYG2GTV6DS3CQ2FDJKR24MFT4EYX
X-Message-ID-Hash: GZGUBYG2GTV6DS3CQ2FDJKR24MFT4EYX
X-MailFrom: t.ellmenreich@proxmox.com
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; loop;
 banned-address; emergency; member-moderation; nonmember-moderation;
 administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation;
 no-subject; digests; suspicious-header
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.10
Precedence: list
List-Id: Proxmox Datacenter Manager development discussion
 <pdm-devel.lists.proxmox.com>
List-Help: <mailto:pdm-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:pdm-devel-owner@lists.proxmox.com>
List-Post: <mailto:pdm-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:pdm-devel-join@lists.proxmox.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:pdm-devel-leave@lists.proxmox.com>

On Wed Aug 5, 2026 at 3:18 PM CEST, Shannon Sterz wrote:

[snip]

>  /// A node and its certificate information.
>  #[derive(Clone, Debug, Deserialize, Serialize, PartialEq)]
> +#[serde(rename_all =3D "kebab-case")]
>  pub struct NodeUrl {
>      /// The node address.
>      pub hostname: String,
> @@ -38,6 +46,11 @@ pub struct NodeUrl {
>      /// Certificate fingerprint.
>      #[serde(skip_serializing_if =3D "Option::is_none")]
>      pub fingerprint: Option<String>,
> +
> +    /// A list of staged fingerprints. If one of these is encountered wh=
ile connecting to a node,
> +    /// they'll replace the main certificate fingerprint. The connection=
 will be deemed valid.
> +    #[serde(skip_serializing_if =3D "Option::is_none")]
> +    pub staged_fingerprints: Option<Vec<Fingerprint>>,
>  }

I'm not sure I understand what the difference between an empty Vec and a No=
ne
value is in terms of state. If there is a difference and an empty Vec has a
special meaning, maybe this should be noted in the doccomment?

[snip