From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from gate001.proxmox.com (gate001.proxmox.com [IPv6:2a0f:8001:1:32::40]) by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D63A21FF09F for ; Thu, 03 Sep 2026 10:25:37 +0200 (CEST) Received: from gate001.proxmox.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by gate001.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 4EC3E2158F; Thu, 03 Sep 2026 10:25:37 +0200 (CEST) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Date: Thu, 03 Sep 2026 10:25:33 +0200 Message-Id: Subject: Re: [PATCH proxmox v4 03/21] api-macro: support shared state extraction type From: "Lukas Wagner" To: "Lukas Wagner" , X-Mailer: aerc 0.21.0-0-g5549850facc2-dirty References: <20260903065016.31726-1-l.wagner@proxmox.com> <20260903065016.31726-4-l.wagner@proxmox.com> In-Reply-To: <20260903065016.31726-4-l.wagner@proxmox.com> X-Bm-Milter-Handled: 55990f41-d878-4baa-be0a-ee34c49e34d2 X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp: 1788423928437 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.510 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 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: 6VANSZWVMFAUGOQGPYT5X74GBWESIXXT X-Message-ID-Hash: 6VANSZWVMFAUGOQGPYT5X74GBWESIXXT X-MailFrom: l.wagner@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 List-Help: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: On Thu Sep 3, 2026 at 8:49 AM CEST, Lukas Wagner wrote: > The #[state] attribute marks types that come from the registry, which > allows telling them apart from regular API parameters. The API macro > recognizes them in API handler signatures and looks them up in the > shared state registry of the RpcEnvironment, instead of deserializing > them from the request parameters. That way a handler declares its > dependencies on application state in its signature and does not have to > access the environment by hand. > > State arguments can either be taken by value or by reference, the latter > avoids a clone in the method generated by the API macro. Taking the > argument by reference is mutually exclusive with a mutable > `RpcEnvironment` reference, since the state argument is borrowed from > the environment. The macro shows a distinct error message in this case, > educating the developer to use a by-value argument instead. > > If we ever decide to store shared state outside the rpc-environment, > this restriction can be lifted. after some discussion with wolfgang, we decided that references will not be supported for now. In PDM, we only take by-value at the moment, since PdmApplication is a thin wrapper around an Arc anyway. We can always add support for reference types later.