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 6216168ADB for ; Fri, 10 Sep 2021 12:03:12 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 5DBD912760 for ; Fri, 10 Sep 2021 12:03:12 +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 id ED37412755 for ; Fri, 10 Sep 2021 12:03:11 +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 C1EC044654 for ; Fri, 10 Sep 2021 12:03:11 +0200 (CEST) Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2021 12:03:04 +0200 From: Fabian =?iso-8859-1?q?Gr=FCnbichler?= To: Dominik Csapak , Proxmox VE development discussion References: <20210910074820.1477562-1-f.gruenbichler@proxmox.com> <53d4b135-8a72-a74a-1633-829f9826e0a1@proxmox.com> In-Reply-To: <53d4b135-8a72-a74a-1633-829f9826e0a1@proxmox.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: astroid/0.15.0 (https://github.com/astroidmail/astroid) Message-Id: <1631266387.dgh383fo0f.astroid@nora.none> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.410 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 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 qemu-server 1/2] api: return UPID in template call 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, 10 Sep 2021 10:03:12 -0000 On September 10, 2021 11:26 am, Dominik Csapak wrote: > Isn't this technically a breaking api change? >=20 > I.e. if someone relies on the '{data:null}' return for a successfull > template task start, it would now break? >=20 > Not that i'm opposed to the patch (on the contrary), just wanted > to clarify technically yes, in the same way that adding new fields to a return type=20 might trip up a very strict client implementation, and we do that all=20 the time ;) the alternative would be to opt-into the new return type via an optional=20 parameter, but that just seems ugly (we don't enforce the return schema,=20 so we can have an API endpoint return null or the UPID if we want based=20 on whatever condition). IMHO the fallout risk is minimal, the benefit is there, and not=20 returning it in the first place was a bug.