From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [212.224.123.68]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by lists.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 46CBF643A5 for ; Wed, 2 Mar 2022 15:29:20 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id DEC4D2A939 for ; Wed, 2 Mar 2022 15:28:49 +0100 (CET) Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (proxmox-new.maurer-it.com [94.136.29.106]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS id 848862A92C for ; Wed, 2 Mar 2022 15:28:46 +0100 (CET) Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 8B24946E60 for ; Wed, 2 Mar 2022 15:28:45 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <02eb4875-5c2d-c2a8-dcf7-4f968363b037@proxmox.com> Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2022 15:28:44 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.6.1 Content-Language: en-US To: Fabian Ebner , pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com References: <20220301085153.31445-1-h.laimer@proxmox.com> <20220301085153.31445-3-h.laimer@proxmox.com> <80447296-7315-6a9d-03a0-dccdc6a77189@proxmox.com> From: Hannes Laimer In-Reply-To: <80447296-7315-6a9d-03a0-dccdc6a77189@proxmox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL -0.360 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address BAYES_00 -1.9 Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment NICE_REPLY_A -0.001 Looks like a legit reply (A) SCC_BODY_URI_ONLY 0.804 - SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE -0.01 - Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH pve-container 2/3] fix #3903: api2: remove vmid from jobs.cfg X-BeenThere: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 02 Mar 2022 14:29:20 -0000 Am 02.03.22 um 11:16 schrieb Fabian Ebner: > Am 01.03.22 um 09:51 schrieb Hannes Laimer: >> ... on destroy if 'purge' is selected >> >> Signed-off-by: Hannes Laimer >> --- >> src/PVE/API2/LXC.pm | 1 + >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) >> >> diff --git a/src/PVE/API2/LXC.pm b/src/PVE/API2/LXC.pm >> index 84712f7..2e4146e 100644 >> --- a/src/PVE/API2/LXC.pm >> +++ b/src/PVE/API2/LXC.pm >> @@ -758,6 +758,7 @@ __PACKAGE__->register_method({ >> print "purging CT $vmid from related configurations..\n"; >> PVE::ReplicationConfig::remove_vmid_jobs($vmid); >> PVE::VZDump::Plugin::remove_vmid_from_backup_jobs($vmid); >> + PVE::Jobs::Plugin::remove_vmid_from_jobs($vmid); > > Should add a > use PVE::Jobs::Plugin; > (or PVE::Jobs if the function is moved there) to the imports. The reason I did not do that in the first place is that it is only used once in the whole file and I felt like I would make an already quite large import section even bigger. Should the previous two lines also use use? Do we have some kind of policy for when and when not to use use? > > Same for the next patch. > >> >> if ($ha_managed) { >> PVE::HA::Config::delete_service_from_config("ct:$vmid");