From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <f.ebner@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))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by lists.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B45389EBA2
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed,  7 Jun 2023 12:01:55 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 9E11B3F49A
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed,  7 Jun 2023 12:01:55 +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
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed,  7 Jun 2023 12:01:55 +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 F262941E3A
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed,  7 Jun 2023 12:01:54 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <3cccc262-6972-697a-3d97-0cd1bd96edbf@proxmox.com>
Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2023 12:01:54 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/102.11.0
Content-Language: en-US
To: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>,
 Friedrich Weber <f.weber@proxmox.com>
References: <20230321170325.2401819-1-f.weber@proxmox.com>
From: Fiona Ebner <f.ebner@proxmox.com>
In-Reply-To: <20230321170325.2401819-1-f.weber@proxmox.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results:  0
 AWL -0.151 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
 NICE_REPLY_A           -0.094 Looks like a legit reply (A)
 POISEN_SPAM_PILL          0.1 Meta: its spam
 POISEN_SPAM_PILL_1        0.1 random spam to be learned in bayes
 POISEN_SPAM_PILL_3        0.1 random spam to be learned in bayes
 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 -
Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [RFC storage] content-dirs: check that all content
 dirs are pairwise inequal
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: Wed, 07 Jun 2023 10:01:55 -0000

Am 21.03.23 um 18:03 schrieb Friedrich Weber:
> This prevents strange interactions in case the same content directory
> is used for multiple content types.
> 

Should we also check in the create/update API calls for syntactic
duplicates and fail the call? E.g. I can successfully issue:
pvesh set /storage/foo --content-dirs backup=bar,iso=bar
and only get the error later during activation.