From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <dietmar@proxmox.com>
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) server-digest SHA256)
 (No client certificate requested)
 by lists.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2324567611
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Thu, 27 Aug 2020 06:23:14 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 139181357C
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Thu, 27 Aug 2020 06:22:44 +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) server-digest SHA256)
 (No client certificate requested)
 by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS id F27E71356C
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Thu, 27 Aug 2020 06:22:42 +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 C1990448D6
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Thu, 27 Aug 2020 06:22:42 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2020 06:22:05 +0200 (CEST)
From: Dietmar Maurer <dietmar@proxmox.com>
To: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>,
 Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com>
Message-ID: <2082154169.147.1598502126547@webmail.proxmox.com>
In-Reply-To: <20200826192710.2131502-1-t.lamprecht@proxmox.com>
References: <20200826192710.2131502-1-t.lamprecht@proxmox.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
Importance: Normal
X-Mailer: Open-Xchange Mailer v7.10.3-Rev21
X-Originating-Client: open-xchange-appsuite
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results:  0
 AWL 0.115 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
Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH common] get_options: allow optional
 arguments "arg_params" if no ambiguity
X-BeenThere: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel.lists.proxmox.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/options/pve-devel>, 
 <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.proxmox.com/pipermail/pve-devel/>
List-Post: <mailto:pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
List-Help: <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel>, 
 <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2020 04:23:14 -0000


> If we run out of passed arguments from the user but still had defined
> "arg_params" (those params which went after the command in fixed
> order without option -- dashes) we always errored out with "not
> enough arguments". But, there are situations where the remaining
> arg_params are all marked as optional in the schema, so we do not
> need to error out in that case.

Ok for me, but

> A prime (future) use case is "pvesm prune-backups". Currently the
> usage is:
> > pvesm prune-backups storeid --prune-backups keep-last=1,keep-...

I would like to have a different CLI for that:

pvesm prune-backups storeid --keep-last 2 --keep-weekly 5

any opinions?