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 1104C1FF37F
for <inbox@lore.proxmox.com>; Thu, 18 Apr 2024 09:38:36 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 4C7DD15C7B;
Thu, 18 Apr 2024 09:38:34 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <53699451-cec8-413f-8ca6-e8d1fa1fd53f@proxmox.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2024 09:38:30 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
To: Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com>,
Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
References: <20240415124838.68905-1-f.ebner@proxmox.com>
<ecfb9c71-9835-48ba-8b6d-a05afe2f9da4@proxmox.com>
Content-Language: en-US
From: Fiona Ebner <f.ebner@proxmox.com>
In-Reply-To: <ecfb9c71-9835-48ba-8b6d-a05afe2f9da4@proxmox.com>
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0
AWL -0.070 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
URIBL_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked. See
http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block for more
information. [plugin.pm]
Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH storage] plugin: move definition for 'port'
option to base plugin
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>
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>
Am 17.04.24 um 16:55 schrieb Thomas Lamprecht:
> Am 15/04/2024 um 14:48 schrieb Fiona Ebner:
>> diff --git a/src/PVE/Storage/Plugin.pm b/src/PVE/Storage/Plugin.pm
>> index 22a9729..5f49830 100644
>> --- a/src/PVE/Storage/Plugin.pm
>> +++ b/src/PVE/Storage/Plugin.pm
>> @@ -205,6 +205,14 @@ my $defaultData = {
>> format => 'pve-storage-options',
>> optional => 1,
>> },
>> + port => {
>> + description => "For PBS/ESXi, use this port to connect to the storage instead of the"
>
> I'd probably avoid hard-coding "PBS/ESXi" here, it would work as good if that
> part would be omitted:
>
> "Use this port to connect to the storage instead of the default one."
>
> In the long run we should switch to a per-plugin schema, like the (IIRC)
> mappings have, as then we could correctly define defaults and descriptions
> without having to be overly general to fit a common denominator.
>
I was thinking, users might stumble upon this e.g. with "man pvesm", and
then try it for storages like NFS and wonder why it doesn't work. With
the "options" option we also explicitly mention NFS/CIFS. I'll send a v2
without mentioning PBS/ESXi if you still want me to after reading my
rationale (should remember to also mention such seemingly little things
in the commit message).
_______________________________________________
pve-devel mailing list
pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com
https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel