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 48897822F for ; Wed, 30 Aug 2023 11:42:57 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 2941132B6A for ; Wed, 30 Aug 2023 11:42:27 +0200 (CEST) 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 ; Wed, 30 Aug 2023 11:42:26 +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 5976847842 for ; Wed, 30 Aug 2023 11:42:26 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <0ca984a7-f7bf-2e39-6b96-456b55d674fe@proxmox.com> Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2023 11:42:25 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.14.0 Content-Language: en-US To: Thomas Lamprecht , Proxmox VE development discussion References: <20230623100811.28031-1-f.ebner@proxmox.com> <793984cf-d2cb-4e83-b617-6f641cd8b100@proxmox.com> From: Fiona Ebner In-Reply-To: <793984cf-d2cb-4e83-b617-6f641cd8b100@proxmox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.545 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 NICE_REPLY_A -1.242 Looks like a legit reply (A) SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH guest-common] replication: avoid passing removed storages to target 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, 30 Aug 2023 09:42:57 -0000 Am 30.08.23 um 11:27 schrieb Thomas Lamprecht: > Am 23/06/2023 um 12:08 schrieb Fiona Ebner: >> + # filter out left-over non-existing/removed storages - avoids error on target >> + $state->{storeid_list} = [ grep { $storecfg->{ids}->{$_} } $state->{storeid_list}->@* ]; > > looks fine in general, just wondering if we'd be better of to make > the grep include-condition a bit more explicit by using `exists` on > the hash: > > $state->{storeid_list} = [ grep { exists $storecfg->{ids}->{$_} } $state->{storeid_list}->@* ]; > > albeit, the value should be always truthy, so might be redundant, > depending on how you see this I can apply this patch or a v2. I don't like using exists() expect when it's really necessary, because it's way too easy picking up something that was auto-vivified accidentally (shouldn't happen in this case, but still). And yes, we can assume the value is truthy if it's an existing storage, so I didn't bother with defined() either.