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 7869D61994 for ; Thu, 10 Feb 2022 09:31:16 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 6471B1A2FC for ; Thu, 10 Feb 2022 09:30:46 +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) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS id 39AE11A2F1 for ; Thu, 10 Feb 2022 09:30:45 +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 0F03445ED8 for ; Thu, 10 Feb 2022 09:30:45 +0100 (CET) Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2022 09:30:44 +0100 From: Wolfgang Bumiller To: Thomas Lamprecht Cc: Proxmox VE development discussion , Dominik Csapak Message-ID: <20220210083044.ja7i5wfhsmuvos3s@olga.proxmox.com> References: <20220127105601.2741602-1-d.csapak@proxmox.com> <20220127105601.2741602-7-d.csapak@proxmox.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.389 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 T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE -0.01 - URIBL_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked. See http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block for more information. [pbsclient.pm] Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH common 1/1] PBSClient: add option for extra parameter to file_restore_list 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, 10 Feb 2022 08:31:16 -0000 On Wed, Feb 09, 2022 at 06:35:33PM +0100, Thomas Lamprecht wrote: > On 27.01.22 11:55, Dominik Csapak wrote: > > we will need some extra parameters here, and instead of hardcoding them, > > have the option to set a list of arbitrary parameters > > > > Signed-off-by: Dominik Csapak > > --- > > src/PVE/PBSClient.pm | 8 ++++++-- > > 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/src/PVE/PBSClient.pm b/src/PVE/PBSClient.pm > > index 21dc363..dfb9f27 100644 > > --- a/src/PVE/PBSClient.pm > > +++ b/src/PVE/PBSClient.pm > > @@ -342,11 +342,15 @@ sub status { > > }; > > > > sub file_restore_list { > > - my ($self, $snapshot, $filepath, $base64) = @_; > > + my ($self, $snapshot, $filepath, $base64, $extraParams) = @_; > > + > > + my $params = [ $snapshot, $filepath, "--base64", $base64 ? 1 : 0 ]; > > + push @$params, @$extraParams; > > + > > return run_client_cmd( > > $self, > > "list", > > - [ $snapshot, $filepath, "--base64", $base64 ? 1 : 0 ], > > + $params, > > 0, > > "proxmox-file-restore", > > ); > > CC'ing Wolfgang, as IIRC he does not like passing "take anything" variables > especially in such dynamic languages like perl. > > FWICT we only call file_restore_list once, and you set the options fixed > there now, so why not just avoid the new method param and pass it directly > fixed here? Indeed, I'm not against having a hash there where we can specify possible extra options, but not in the form of command line parameters that are passed as-is. The question is rather how many more parameters will be required in the future and will you just add a single `$timeout` or a `%options` containing a `->{timeout}` field ;-) And `--json-error` seems to be generally a good idea to be always set for a CLI-tool-based perl api so it can just `die` with the right errors, no? Wouldn't it make sense to add this directly to `run_client_cmd`?