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 6D9EE9F4DE for ; Mon, 6 Nov 2023 11:12:46 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 47ADE142BC for ; Mon, 6 Nov 2023 11:12:16 +0100 (CET) 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) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS for ; Mon, 6 Nov 2023 11:12:15 +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 56607452A9 for ; Mon, 6 Nov 2023 11:12:15 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <7b552bd6-fbb2-45fc-84af-0498854c85c9@proxmox.com> Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2023 11:12:14 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Content-Language: en-US To: Dominik Csapak , Proxmox VE development discussion References: <20231103115343.4133611-1-d.csapak@proxmox.com> <20231103115343.4133611-3-d.csapak@proxmox.com> <0ca79682-9c69-4fdf-a4ca-73dfb0adc396@proxmox.com> <66a5548b-f8ff-48bc-bccd-d71ed5f4769f@proxmox.com> From: Fiona Ebner In-Reply-To: <66a5548b-f8ff-48bc-bccd-d71ed5f4769f@proxmox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit 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 T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE -0.01 - URIBL_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked. See http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block for more information. [proxmox.com, realmsync.pm] Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [RFC PATCH guest-common 1/1] add profiles section config plugin 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: Mon, 06 Nov 2023 10:12:46 -0000 Am 06.11.23 um 10:34 schrieb Dominik Csapak: > On 11/6/23 10:22, Fiona Ebner wrote: >> Am 03.11.23 um 12:53 schrieb Dominik Csapak: >>> +my $defaultData = { >>> +    propertyList => { >>> +    type => { description => 'Profile type.' }, >>> +    id => { >>> +        type => 'string', >>> +        description => "The ID of the profile.", >>> +        format => 'pve-configid', >>> +    }, >> >> The ID is usually not a property AFAIK. Doesn't this lead to duplication >> when writing the section config, i.e. >> >> type: >>     id >> >> ? Do we gain anything by having it be a property? > > mhm? the id has to be part of the properties, otherwise > the generated api with 'createSchema' etc. would not include it. > > (it isn't always named id, e.g. in the storage plugins > it's 'storage') > I was just reminded of [0], where it could lead to that situation. Would need to check if that patch still applies, because since then Jobs/RealmSync.pm has been added. But somebody needs to filter the 'storage' property, right? Isn't that property actually superfluous? E.g. root@pve8a1 ~ # pvesm set pbsenc --storage foobar root@pve8a1 ~ # pvesm add dir foo --storage bar --path /var/lib/vz root@pve8a1 ~ # grep bar /etc/pve/storage.cfg 1 root@pve8a1 ~ # [0]: https://lists.proxmox.com/pipermail/pve-devel/2022-November/054714.html