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 [IPv6:2a01:7e0:0:424::9])
by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 81E201FF165
for <inbox@lore.proxmox.com>; Thu, 27 Mar 2025 12:03:49 +0100 (CET)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id A52D7A1DF;
Thu, 27 Mar 2025 12:03:42 +0100 (CET)
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2025 12:03:09 +0100
From: Wolfgang Bumiller <w.bumiller@proxmox.com>
To: Fiona Ebner <f.ebner@proxmox.com>
Message-ID: <4olresdmwzkyigwthsr33mnkm6zbvim526xicmjgxasnxphhko@lbjvsxt33lku>
References: <20250321134852.103871-1-f.ebner@proxmox.com>
<20250321134852.103871-10-f.ebner@proxmox.com>
<rwkxjkkcxw47ejacigpqwc3yzm56faodboxav5wdzbk6f6ncwi@ey5vemoxd5mq>
<c37a66a5-c6b2-46b9-9b6f-e3a09b16c572@proxmox.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <c37a66a5-c6b2-46b9-9b6f-e3a09b16c572@proxmox.com>
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0
AWL 0.080 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: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH storage v5 09/32] plugin: introduce
new_backup_provider() method
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>
Cc: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Errors-To: pve-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com
Sender: "pve-devel" <pve-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com>
On Tue, Mar 25, 2025 at 01:50:20PM +0100, Fiona Ebner wrote:
> Am 24.03.25 um 16:43 schrieb Wolfgang Bumiller:
> > Just a short high level nit today, will have to look more closely at
> > this and the series the next days:
> >
> > There's a `new()` which takes an $scfg + $storeid.
> >
> > But later there are some methods taking `$self` (which usually means the
> > thing returned from `new()`), which also get a `$storeid` as additional
> > parameter (but without any `$scfg`). IMO the `$storeid` should be
> > dropped there.
>
> Nice catch! Yeah, I think that was an oversight when I restructured in
> an earlier version. In fact, my example implementations of those
> functions even use $self->{storeid} already (or don't require the
> storeid at all). I'll remove those left-overs in v6.
Two more small things:
The `restore_get_{guest,firewall}_config` docs should probably
specifically mention that these are independent queries and called
without any `restore_*_init()` calls.
Thinking about this more, maybe they should be renamed.
It might be nicer to have the `restore_` prefix used only for restore
processes, and rename these to `archive_get_*_config()`?
These are also used to view the config in the UI (or at least the
`get_geust_config` one is also called from `Storage::extract_vzdump_config()`).
_______________________________________________
pve-devel mailing list
pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com
https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel