From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [IPv6:2a01:7e0:0:424::9]) by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 620D01FF15F for ; Mon, 9 Sep 2024 16:02:41 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 6967A1469E; Mon, 9 Sep 2024 16:03:18 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <28159577-dd72-4a23-b93f-b1382a235834@proxmox.com> Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2024 16:02:44 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird To: Proxmox VE development discussion , Aaron Lauterer References: <20240729115540.191594-1-a.lauterer@proxmox.com> <20240729115540.191594-2-a.lauterer@proxmox.com> Content-Language: en-US From: Fiona Ebner In-Reply-To: <20240729115540.191594-2-a.lauterer@proxmox.com> X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL -0.058 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 Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH common v4 1/7] tools: add check_list_empty function 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: , Reply-To: Proxmox VE development discussion Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: pve-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com Sender: "pve-devel" Am 29.07.24 um 13:55 schrieb Aaron Lauterer: > In some situations we don't want a total empty list. I opted for a > dedicated function instead of integrating it as error in the > `split_list` function. It is used in many places and the potential > fallout from unintended behavior changes is too big. > > Signed-off-by: Aaron Lauterer > Tested-By: Stefan Hanreich > Reviewed-by: Shannon Sterz > --- > changes since: v3: none > v2: newly added > > src/PVE/Tools.pm | 8 ++++++++ > 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/src/PVE/Tools.pm b/src/PVE/Tools.pm > index bd305bd..f796bd0 100644 > --- a/src/PVE/Tools.pm > +++ b/src/PVE/Tools.pm > @@ -718,6 +718,14 @@ sub split_list { > return @data; > } > > +sub check_list_empty { > + my ($list) = @_; > + if (scalar(PVE::Tools::split_list($list)) < 1) { > + return 0; > + } > + return 1; > +} This can be very confusing IMHO. Intuitively, I'd expect the expression check_list_empty($list) to be truthy if $list is empty. I'd rather call it list_not_empty. But looking at the caller you introduce later, it might be better to avoid the double negative, flip the truth table and call it list_is_empty. > + > sub trim { > my $txt = shift; > _______________________________________________ pve-devel mailing list pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel