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 48D96938A4 for ; Tue, 6 Feb 2024 10:00:06 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 2B4D230E65 for ; Tue, 6 Feb 2024 09:59:36 +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)) (No client certificate requested) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS for ; Tue, 6 Feb 2024 09:59:35 +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 D89EC446F4 for ; Tue, 6 Feb 2024 09:59:34 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <0acb22d3-bad0-4fac-af0c-3ccfcbbd5ada@proxmox.com> Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2024 09:59:34 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Content-Language: en-US To: Christian Ebner , Proxmox VE development discussion References: <20240205170827.340962-1-c.ebner@proxmox.com> <362b0156-16d4-40d6-9eb0-6bea947e7092@proxmox.com> <990490647.2281.1707209309110@webmail.proxmox.com> From: Fiona Ebner In-Reply-To: <990490647.2281.1707209309110@webmail.proxmox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL -0.072 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 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 proxmox master stable-2 1/2] apt: repos: extend `Codename` by `Unknown` variant 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: Tue, 06 Feb 2024 09:00:06 -0000 Am 06.02.24 um 09:48 schrieb Christian Ebner: > >>> >>> - if Some(codename) == current_codename.next() { >>> - add_info("ignore-pre-upgrade-warning", message_new(base_suite)); >>> - } else if codename > current_codename { >>> - add_info("warning", message_new(base_suite)); >>> + match current_codename.next() { >>> + name if name == codename => { >>> + add_info("ignore-pre-upgrade-warning", message_new(base_suite)); >>> + } >>> + DebianCodename::Unknown(_, _) if codename > current_codename => { >>> + add_info("warning", message_new(base_suite)); >>> + } >>> + _ => {} >> >> Like this, the warning is lost when we match a known codename that is >> newer than the current one. What is the issue with the current code you >> are trying to address? > > There is no issue with the current code, I just refactored it to use the newly introduced variant instead of the Option. > Am I missing something? This should behave just like the code before. > You only match the current codename and DebianCodename::Unknown(_, _). Any known newer codename will just fall through to the default arm (and the default arm can/should be avoided by pulling in the check for the older codename from above).