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) server-digest SHA256)
 (No client certificate requested)
 by lists.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9ACD26B5BF;
 Wed, 17 Mar 2021 09:33:53 +0100 (CET)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 887922A8D8;
 Wed, 17 Mar 2021 09:33:23 +0100 (CET)
Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (proxmox-new.maurer-it.com
 [212.186.127.180])
 (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)
 key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256)
 (No client certificate requested)
 by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS id 21AB52A8CA;
 Wed, 17 Mar 2021 09:33:23 +0100 (CET)
Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
 by proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id E5ECF41C05;
 Wed, 17 Mar 2021 09:33:22 +0100 (CET)
To: Dominik Csapak <d.csapak@proxmox.com>,
 Proxmox Backup Server development discussion <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>,
 pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com
References: <20210312125329.20918-1-f.ebner@proxmox.com>
 <9c4faae1-e533-c992-43be-74d474c5c21d@proxmox.com>
From: Fabian Ebner <f.ebner@proxmox.com>
Message-ID: <51c3764f-a9cc-32cf-9f90-9f91624ddd85@proxmox.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2021 09:33:09 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/78.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <9c4faae1-e533-c992-43be-74d474c5c21d@proxmox.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results:  0
 AWL 0.003 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address
 KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment
 NICE_REPLY_A           -0.001 Looks like a legit reply (A)
 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED        -2.3 Sender listed at https://www.dnswl.org/,
 medium trust
 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] [pbs-devel] [PATCH-SERIES] improve warnings
 handling in UI and add to PVE
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, 17 Mar 2021 08:33:53 -0000

Am 16.03.21 um 15:02 schrieb Dominik Csapak:
> series looks good to me, the only thing that might be not ideal
> is the value.replace('WARNINGS', '') call. it seems very brittle
> though in reality it will probably not be a problem
> 
> Reviewed-By: Dominik Csapak <d.csapak@proxmox.com>
> 

Thanks for the review. I'm also not 100% happy with the replace. I 
didn't see a better alternative at the time, but maybe I do now:

We need to keep backwards compatibility for the existing callers of 
parse_task_status(), so also returning the number of warnings there 
doesn't seem to work. Instead, we could add a new 
parse_task_status_full() that returns both the status *and* the text to 
be displayed.

A better version of the replace would also be possible:
     value.replace('WARNINGS', Proxmox.Utils.warningsText);

If one of those sounds sensible, I'll send a v2.