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)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A971D676BD for ; Thu, 27 Aug 2020 10:54:30 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 9F52E15B96 for ; Thu, 27 Aug 2020 10:54:30 +0200 (CEST) Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (proxmox-new.maurer-it.com [212.186.127.180]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS id 7892B15B87 for ; Thu, 27 Aug 2020 10:54:29 +0200 (CEST) Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 3DCDA448DC for ; Thu, 27 Aug 2020 10:54:29 +0200 (CEST) From: Thomas Lamprecht To: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com Reply-To: Proxmox VE development discussion References: <20200826192710.2131502-1-t.lamprecht@proxmox.com> Message-ID: <09aabb56-d417-79fc-e0f7-a42d5ec56258@proxmox.com> Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2020 10:54:27 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:80.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/80.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20200826192710.2131502-1-t.lamprecht@proxmox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL -0.099 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment 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 URIBL_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked. See http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block for more information. [jsonschema.pm] Subject: [pve-devel] applied: [PATCH common] get_options: allow optional arguments "arg_params" if no ambiguity 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: Thu, 27 Aug 2020 08:54:30 -0000 On 26.08.20 21:27, Thomas Lamprecht wrote: > If we run out of passed arguments from the user but still had defined > "arg_params" (those params which went after the command in fixed > order without option -- dashes) we always errored out with "not > enough arguments". But, there are situations where the remaining > arg_params are all marked as optional in the schema, so we do not > need to error out in that case. > > Signed-off-by: Thomas Lamprecht > --- > > A prime (future) use case is "pvesm prune-backups". Currently the > usage is: >> pvesm prune-backups storeid --prune-backups keep-last=1,keep-... > > Because the "prune-backups" keep retention property is optional as it > can fallback to the one defined in the storage configuration. > With this patch we can make it an argument and allow the following > two usages: > > 1. As above, but avoiding the extra ugly --prune-backups >> pvesm prune-backups storeid keep-last=1,keep-... > > 2. Fallback to storage config: >> pvesm prune-backups storeid > > src/PVE/JSONSchema.pm | 13 +++++++++++-- > 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > while Dietmars proposal to move the example above to another format, more similar to the one from proxmox-backup, is better; this is still nice to have, so: applied