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 5E5977390C for ; Fri, 16 Apr 2021 12:11:11 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 4B8B9232D0 for ; Fri, 16 Apr 2021 12:10:41 +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 A6B29232C5 for ; Fri, 16 Apr 2021 12:10:40 +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 658D1420F6 for ; Fri, 16 Apr 2021 12:10:40 +0200 (CEST) Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2021 12:10:33 +0200 From: Fabian =?iso-8859-1?q?Gr=FCnbichler?= To: Proxmox VE development discussion , Thomas Lamprecht References: <20210413121640.3602975-1-f.gruenbichler@proxmox.com> <20210413121640.3602975-13-f.gruenbichler@proxmox.com> <3c95a4c6-0403-799f-fe39-c4ae241eb654@proxmox.com> In-Reply-To: <3c95a4c6-0403-799f-fe39-c4ae241eb654@proxmox.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: astroid/0.15.0 (https://github.com/astroidmail/astroid) Message-Id: <1618567700.qph1jxvqr7.astroid@nora.none> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.026 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: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH common 2/2] schema: add pve-bridge-id option/format/pair 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: Fri, 16 Apr 2021 10:11:11 -0000 On April 16, 2021 11:53 am, Thomas Lamprecht wrote: > On 13.04.21 14:16, Fabian Gr=C3=BCnbichler wrote: >> for re-use in qemu-server/pve-container, which already have this option >> duplicated. the '-pair' is needed for remote migration, but can also be >> a nice addition to regular intra-cluster migration to lift the >> restriction of having identically named bridges. >>=20 >=20 > looks OK, one naming issue inline >=20 >> Signed-off-by: Fabian Gr=C3=BCnbichler >> --- >> src/PVE/JSONSchema.pm | 25 +++++++++++++++++++++++++ >> 1 file changed, 25 insertions(+) >>=20 >> diff --git a/src/PVE/JSONSchema.pm b/src/PVE/JSONSchema.pm >> index f2ddb50..bf30b33 100644 >> --- a/src/PVE/JSONSchema.pm >> +++ b/src/PVE/JSONSchema.pm >> @@ -82,6 +82,12 @@ register_standard_option('pve-storage-id', { >> type =3D> 'string', format =3D> 'pve-storage-id', >> }); >> =20 >> +register_standard_option('pve-bridge-id', { >> + description =3D> "Bridge to attach guest network devices to.", >> + type =3D> 'string', format =3D> 'pve-bridge-id', >> + format_description =3D> 'bridge', >> +}); >> + >> register_standard_option('pve-config-digest', { >> description =3D> 'Prevent changes if current configuration file has= different SHA1 digest. This can be used to prevent concurrent modification= s.', >> type =3D> 'string', >> @@ -193,6 +199,17 @@ sub parse_storage_id { >> return parse_id($storeid, 'storage', $noerr); >> } >> =20 >> +PVE::JSONSchema::register_format('pve-bridge-id', \&parse_bridge_id); >> +sub parse_bridge_id { >> + my ($id, $noerr) =3D @_; >> + >> + if ($id !~ m/^[-_.\w\d]+$/) { >> + return undef if $noerr; >> + die "invalid bridge ID '$id'\n"; >> + } >> + return $id; >> +} >> + >> PVE::JSONSchema::register_format('acme-plugin-id', \&parse_acme_plugin_= id); >> sub parse_acme_plugin_id { >> my ($pluginid, $noerr) =3D @_; >> @@ -293,6 +310,14 @@ sub verify_storagepair { >> my ($storagepair, $noerr) =3D @_; >> return $verify_idpair->($storagepair, $noerr, 'pve-storage-id'); >> } >> + >> +# note: this only checks a single list entry >> +# when using a bridgepair-list map, you need to pass the full parameter= to >> +# parse_idmap >> +register_format('bridgepair', \&verify_bridgepair); >=20 > pve-bridge-id vs. bridgepair seems slightly odd as syntax choice? >=20 > Why not `bridge-pair` or even `pve-bridge-pair`? mainly because of the pre-existing 'storagepair', but I am fine with=20 either (and also with changing storagepair - this series already touches=20 so many repos that change can be mixed in without extra churn I think). same for the API parameter(s) (I recycled the existing 'targetstorage',=20 although I'd find 'target-FOO' more readable and I am also fine with=20 using that variant for the new API call for all parameters) >=20 >> +sub verify_bridgepair { >> + my ($bridgepair, $noerr) =3D @_; >> + return $verify_idpair->($bridgepair, $noerr, 'pve-bridge-id'); >> } >> =20 >> register_format('mac-addr', \&pve_verify_mac_addr); >>=20 >=20 >=20 =