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 C0D821FF164
for <inbox@lore.proxmox.com>; Fri, 6 Dec 2024 09:53:30 +0100 (CET)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 8DDE71DC;
Fri, 6 Dec 2024 09:53:30 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <7817aa77-3c8e-4122-b2cd-70c99816b9dc@proxmox.com>
Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2024 09:52:57 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Beta
To: Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com>,
Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
References: <20241205082743.459521-1-d.csapak@proxmox.com>
<f32df1f1-60f0-48ea-bd6d-374e6f01f777@proxmox.com>
Content-Language: en-US
From: Dominik Csapak <d.csapak@proxmox.com>
In-Reply-To: <f32df1f1-60f0-48ea-bd6d-374e6f01f777@proxmox.com>
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0
AWL 0.015 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
RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_CERTIFIED_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to
Validity was blocked. See
https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for more
information.
RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to
Validity was blocked. See
https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for more
information.
RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_SAFE_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to
Validity was blocked. See
https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for more
information.
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. [network.pm]
Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [RFC PATCH] api: network: add return schema for
interface listing
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-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"
Errors-To: pve-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com
Sender: "pve-devel" <pve-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com>
On 12/5/24 09:43, Thomas Lamprecht wrote:
> Am 05.12.24 um 09:27 schrieb Dominik Csapak:
>> Most optiosn come from the api call parameter list
>> (`json_config_properties`). The description and types for the remaining
>> ons are either taken from the manpages, source code or similar
>> documentation where available.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Dominik Csapak <d.csapak@proxmox.com>
>> ---
>> sending as RFC because some descriptions are very barebones due to lack
>> of documentation on the specific properties (link-type, vxlan-*, etc.)
>>
>> @s.hahnreich, maybe could you take a look at these and expand on some of
>> them?
>>
>> PVE/API2/Network.pm | 97 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
>> 1 file changed, 95 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/PVE/API2/Network.pm b/PVE/API2/Network.pm
>> index b9db9b27..df3db5af 100644
>> --- a/PVE/API2/Network.pm
>> +++ b/PVE/API2/Network.pm
>> @@ -38,7 +38,7 @@ my $bond_mode_enum = [
>> ];
>>
>> my $network_type_enum = ['bridge', 'bond', 'eth', 'alias', 'vlan',
>> - 'OVSBridge', 'OVSBond', 'OVSPort', 'OVSIntPort'];
>> + 'OVSBridge', 'OVSBond', 'OVSPort', 'OVSIntPort', 'vnet'];
>>
>> my $confdesc = {
>> type => {
>> @@ -223,7 +223,100 @@ __PACKAGE__->register_method({
>> type => "array",
>> items => {
>> type => "object",
>> - properties => {},
>> + properties => json_config_properties({
>> + iface => get_standard_option('pve-iface'),
>> + active => {
>> + type => 'boolean',
>> + optional => 1,
>> + description => "Set to 1 if the interface is active.",
>
> some rather higher level and certainly pre-existing in quite a few places, but might
> it be better to do s/1/true/ here? IIRC the API accepts both IIRC, so not really a
> problem if the user takes this literally,
>
this is the return schema only though, and we actually return a 1. Should i use
true regardless ? (no hard feelings either way)
_______________________________________________
pve-devel mailing list
pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com
https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel