From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [IPv6:2a01:7e0:0:424::9]) by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D23A81FF161 for ; Tue, 10 Sep 2024 08:56:30 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 552C91E938; Tue, 10 Sep 2024 08:56:28 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <8c2bb01f-02d1-4e92-87a2-3efec4ef8bfe@proxmox.com> Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2024 08:56:25 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Content-Language: en-US To: Fiona Ebner , Proxmox VE development discussion References: <20240729115540.191594-1-a.lauterer@proxmox.com> <20240729115540.191594-2-a.lauterer@proxmox.com> <28159577-dd72-4a23-b93f-b1382a235834@proxmox.com> From: Aaron Lauterer In-Reply-To: <28159577-dd72-4a23-b93f-b1382a235834@proxmox.com> X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL -0.038 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. [tools.pm] Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH common v4 1/7] tools: add check_list_empty function 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: , Reply-To: Proxmox VE development discussion Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Errors-To: pve-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com Sender: "pve-devel" On 2024-09-09 16:02, Fiona Ebner wrote: > Am 29.07.24 um 13:55 schrieb Aaron Lauterer: >> In some situations we don't want a total empty list. I opted for a >> dedicated function instead of integrating it as error in the >> `split_list` function. It is used in many places and the potential >> fallout from unintended behavior changes is too big. >> >> Signed-off-by: Aaron Lauterer >> Tested-By: Stefan Hanreich >> Reviewed-by: Shannon Sterz >> --- >> changes since: v3: none >> v2: newly added >> >> src/PVE/Tools.pm | 8 ++++++++ >> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+) >> >> diff --git a/src/PVE/Tools.pm b/src/PVE/Tools.pm >> index bd305bd..f796bd0 100644 >> --- a/src/PVE/Tools.pm >> +++ b/src/PVE/Tools.pm >> @@ -718,6 +718,14 @@ sub split_list { >> return @data; >> } >> >> +sub check_list_empty { >> + my ($list) = @_; >> + if (scalar(PVE::Tools::split_list($list)) < 1) { >> + return 0; >> + } >> + return 1; >> +} > > This can be very confusing IMHO. Intuitively, I'd expect the expression > check_list_empty($list) to be truthy if $list is empty. I'd rather call > it list_not_empty. But looking at the caller you introduce later, it > might be better to avoid the double negative, flip the truth table and > call it list_is_empty. > thanks! sounds like a good idea. I will wait a bit before sending a v5. >> + >> sub trim { >> my $txt = shift; >> _______________________________________________ pve-devel mailing list pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel