From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: <d.tschlatscher@proxmox.com> 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 DBCF68E4D1 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Fri, 11 Nov 2022 15:17:29 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id B0D0345EA for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Fri, 11 Nov 2022 15:16:59 +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)) (No client certificate requested) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Fri, 11 Nov 2022 15:16:57 +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 8EC3643A12 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Fri, 11 Nov 2022 15:16:57 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <9bdf143c-decb-d8eb-6ff9-24a8fe894c9f@proxmox.com> Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2022 15:16:56 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.4.0 Content-Language: en-US To: Stefan Hanreich <s.hanreich@proxmox.com>, Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com> References: <20221110153341.494439-1-s.hanreich@proxmox.com> <46120094-b291-a817-25a6-a0242f271f8a@proxmox.com> <7b5fade0-7a32-79d7-fb75-b67a5ffa447d@proxmox.com> From: Daniel Tschlatscher <d.tschlatscher@proxmox.com> In-Reply-To: <7b5fade0-7a32-79d7-fb75-b67a5ffa447d@proxmox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL -0.150 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 -0.001 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 URIBL_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked. See http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block for more information. [lxc.pm, guest-example-hookscript.pl, qemu.pm, proxmox.com] Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH v2 pve-container/qemu-server/pve-docs] Add pre/post-restore hooks 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> X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2022 14:17:29 -0000 On 11/11/22 15:02, Stefan Hanreich wrote: > > On 11/11/22 14:58, Daniel Tschlatscher wrote: >> The new hookscript example works nicely out of the box. >> >> I tested restore for both VMs and containers via the GUI, the restore >> and create commands in the respective CLI commands and with the API. >> >> One thing which might some more consideration: >> When restoring a backup that does not configure a hookscript, the >> 'pre-restore' hook will run, however, the 'post-restore' will not. This >> was very confusing at first. >> Similarly, if the config does not include a hookscript, but the backup >> does, then the 'pre-restore' will not run but the 'post-restore' will. >> While this is not breaking, it is definitely very unexpected for an >> unsuspecting user. > > Yes, it might be smarter to use the old config for both pre/post-restore > and not mix both configurations I think. +1 for not mixing the configurations Based on our discussion off-list: I feel like it might be even better to make this setting config-version agnostic. Or at least, to not overwrite/include it when making or restoring backups, and to keep it the same each time. At least that feels like the way I would expect it to work intuitively. > > Because of this and the minor issues with the example hookscript I will > create a v3. Some input on whether to use the old configuration for both > pre/post-restore or not would be much appreciated > > Ty for the review! > >> >> Otherwise, the core part of the series works as intended, therefore: >> >> Tested-by: Daniel Tschlatscher <d.tschlatscher@proxmox.com> >> >> >> On 11/10/22 16:33, Stefan Hanreich wrote: >>> This patch adds hooks that run when the user restores a backup from >>> the Web UI >>> / CLI. I have tested this with both VMs/CTs via Web UI and CLI. Are >>> there any >>> other places where the hook should get triggered that I missed? >>> >>> Changes compared to v1: >>> - slightly moved the call site of the exec_hookscript in qemu-server and >>> pve-container, so necessary checks are run before the hookscript runs. >>> >>> >>> pve-container: >>> >>> Stefan Hanreich (1): >>> Add pre/post-restore hooks to CTs >>> >>> src/PVE/API2/LXC.pm | 7 +++++++ >>> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+) >>> >>> >>> pve-docs: >>> >>> Stefan Hanreich (1): >>> add pre/post-restore events to example hookscript >>> >>> examples/guest-example-hookscript.pl | 14 ++++++++++++++ >>> 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+) >>> >>> >>> qemu-server: >>> >>> Stefan Hanreich (1): >>> Add pre/post-restore hooks to VMs >>> >>> PVE/API2/Qemu.pm | 10 ++++++++-- >>> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> pve-devel mailing list >> pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com >> https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel >> >>