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 D65751FF13C for ; Thu, 05 Mar 2026 08:05:47 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 33C8C1B6BA; Thu, 5 Mar 2026 08:06:53 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <4e1f8ad6-e50d-49fc-b7e7-6752a71b7013@proxmox.com> Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2026 08:06:49 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [RFC proxmox 05/22] firewall-api-types: add FirewallClusterOptions To: Stefan Hanreich , pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com References: <20260216104401.3959270-1-dietmar@proxmox.com> <20260216104401.3959270-6-dietmar@proxmox.com> <6f2899ea-52d8-401a-a9ea-361f98a6fd26@proxmox.com> Content-Language: en-US From: Dietmar Maurer In-Reply-To: <6f2899ea-52d8-401a-a9ea-361f98a6fd26@proxmox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Bm-Milter-Handled: 55990f41-d878-4baa-be0a-ee34c49e34d2 X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp: 1772694383030 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.340 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 SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record Message-ID-Hash: F3IGSYCONZAPOSMB4TYEUUXQRQUQQ67U X-Message-ID-Hash: F3IGSYCONZAPOSMB4TYEUUXQRQUQQ67U X-MailFrom: dietmar@proxmox.com X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; loop; banned-address; emergency; member-moderation; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.10 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion List-Help: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: > The configuration options all have default values, if unset. Might make > sense to add helper methods that return them if the fields are unset, > similar to how its done in ve-config? [1]. Applies to the other option > structs as well. Yes, I guess that is a good idea.