From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: 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 4231568AD1 for ; Fri, 10 Sep 2021 12:01:24 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 37C001269A for ; Fri, 10 Sep 2021 12:00:54 +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 id C02091268B for ; Fri, 10 Sep 2021 12:00:53 +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 963894466E for ; Fri, 10 Sep 2021 12:00:53 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <780ba453-3fd4-389b-cc09-b4185860807b@proxmox.com> Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2021 12:00:20 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:92.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/92.0 Content-Language: en-US To: Proxmox VE development discussion , Dominik Csapak , =?UTF-8?Q?Fabian_Gr=c3=bcnbichler?= References: <20210910074820.1477562-1-f.gruenbichler@proxmox.com> <53d4b135-8a72-a74a-1633-829f9826e0a1@proxmox.com> From: Thomas Lamprecht In-Reply-To: <53d4b135-8a72-a74a-1633-829f9826e0a1@proxmox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 1.275 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address BAYES_00 -1.9 Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment NICE_REPLY_A -1.975 Looks like a legit reply (A) 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 qemu-server 1/2] api: return UPID in template call X-BeenThere: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2021 10:01:24 -0000 On 10.09.21 11:26, Dominik Csapak wrote: > Isn't this technically a breaking api change? > > I.e. if someone relies on the '{data:null}' return for a successfull > template task start, it would now break? > > Not that i'm opposed to the patch (on the contrary), just wanted > to clarify > We never saw the change from null to some data, especially UPID as breaking change. If you argue that one asserted for null, which one can do but we simply do not care, especially as we often did that and nobody yelled about that practice yet, then we also must not add new parameters because once could have asserted that their API work by asserting the return of an error code by using an unknown parameter, i.e., that arguing is a slippery slope to absolutely freezing development. Breaking change in response are basically: - change from non-null type to something else - removal of properties without guarding such removal behind a new+ property or similar opt-in way