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 5A73DCAF3 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 16 Aug 2023 11:32:23 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 3B58013937 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 16 Aug 2023 11:32:23 +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, 16 Aug 2023 11:32:21 +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 CD90647942 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 16 Aug 2023 11:32:20 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <4f4d4d5f-b67b-8983-fd15-2ebac509c422@proxmox.com> Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2023 11:32:19 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.13.1 Content-Language: en-US To: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>, Dominik Csapak <d.csapak@proxmox.com> References: <20230816090911.3741277-1-d.csapak@proxmox.com> From: Fiona Ebner <f.ebner@proxmox.com> In-Reply-To: <20230816090911.3741277-1-d.csapak@proxmox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL -0.059 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 Subject: [pve-devel] applied: [PATCH common v2] SectionConfig: fix handling unknown sections 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, 16 Aug 2023 09:32:23 -0000 Am 16.08.23 um 11:09 schrieb Dominik Csapak: > if we're parsing an unknown section, we cannot check the schema with > `is_array` to check if it's an array type or not, thus we have to > handle that separately. > > fix this by handling data in unknown sections like an array similar to > "cb2646c7b4974e33f4148752deec71f0d589b0f3" in proxmox-section-config. > This way we can write unknown section out again like we parsed it. > > Add a regression test for an unknown field not in the schema. > > This fixes an issue, where calling `qm destroy ID --purge` removed much > of the configs ob backup jobs (since there we parse an 'unknown' section > and run into the `is_array` error) > (Reported in the forum: https://forum.proxmox.com/threads/132091) > > Suggested-by: Fiona Ebner <f.ebner@proxmox.com> > Signed-off-by: Dominik Csapak <d.csapak@proxmox.com> > --- applied, thanks! As a follow-up, I added an actual array in the unknown section to test for that too.