From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <pve-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com>
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [212.224.123.68])
by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F06261FF15E
for <inbox@lore.proxmox.com>; Tue, 28 Jan 2025 15:46:21 +0100 (CET)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id B548410313;
Tue, 28 Jan 2025 15:46:18 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <25098460-cb5f-4a09-9b0b-a34da57ce0ef@proxmox.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2025 15:46:15 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Beta
To: Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com>,
Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
References: <20250108084558.390324-1-d.csapak@proxmox.com>
<20250108084558.390324-2-d.csapak@proxmox.com>
<7ffc1b0e-1d46-4f27-a0a9-f523b32d3108@proxmox.com>
<f838efc6-fcbc-41b7-b391-8d5c49b32d9f@proxmox.com>
<fa580fc3-7b05-403b-b9f4-9c6d427e510a@proxmox.com>
<4039e234-6d27-4518-9706-68fe13947b22@proxmox.com>
Content-Language: en-US
From: Dominik Csapak <d.csapak@proxmox.com>
In-Reply-To: <4039e234-6d27-4518-9706-68fe13947b22@proxmox.com>
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0
AWL 0.026 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
RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_CERTIFIED_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to
Validity was blocked. See
https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for more
information.
RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to
Validity was blocked. See
https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for more
information.
RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_SAFE_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to
Validity was blocked. See
https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for more
information.
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. [proxmox.com]
Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [RFC PATCH http-server 1/2] add error message into
http body
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>
Reply-To: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"
Errors-To: pve-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com
Sender: "pve-devel" <pve-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com>
On 1/28/25 15:24, Thomas Lamprecht wrote:
> Am 27.01.25 um 13:44 schrieb Dominik Csapak:
>> any new input on this?
>>
>> I have thought about blindly adding 'plain/text' to it or do an 'encode_json("$msg")' and adding
>> 'application/json', but both options don't seem very sensible to me, as they're altering
>> the content type for all errors the api returns. This might trip up some clients.
>> (whereas before we did not set it so the client was free to guess or ignore the body content,
>> even if it was set)
>
> Thanks for the clarification, leaving it as is can be fine then.
> But maybe add a short comment with rationale from your reply here.
>
great, sent a v2:
https://lore.proxmox.com/pve-devel/20250128144125.3589111-1-d.csapak@proxmox.com/T/#t
(short question: is going from rfc -> v2 alright with you? or should i do
rfc -> v1 -> v2 in the future? looking at my past series i did both, but would
like to do that consistently. maybe it's even a thing to write in the dev docs?)
_______________________________________________
pve-devel mailing list
pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com
https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel