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 147EB1FF183 for ; Thu, 21 Nov 2024 16:55:09 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 25F8A155A; Thu, 21 Nov 2024 16:55:15 +0100 (CET) Mime-Version: 1.0 Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2024 16:54:41 +0100 Message-Id: To: "Thomas Lamprecht" , "Proxmox VE development discussion" From: "Max Carrara" X-Mailer: aerc 0.18.2-0-ge037c095a049 References: <20240802132656.270077-1-m.carrara@proxmox.com> <20240802132656.270077-9-m.carrara@proxmox.com> <24b148ea-7c38-4dd2-a597-4def9ba35128@proxmox.com> In-Reply-To: <24b148ea-7c38-4dd2-a597-4def9ba35128@proxmox.com> X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.033 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 Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH v1 pve-common 08/18] pbsclient: document package and its public functions & methods 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-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: pve-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com Sender: "pve-devel" On Mon Nov 11, 2024 at 8:14 PM CET, Thomas Lamprecht wrote: > Am 02.08.24 um 15:26 schrieb Max Carrara: > > This commit adds a brief overview for the `PVE::PBSClient` package and > > documents its public functions and methods. Examples are added where > > deemed appropriate. > > great works and thanks for improving the documentation of perl code, but I > think making this a bit more concise, e.g. shorting some examples or formats > might give us a better balance and ROI here, to avoid losing the important > things in the noise, so to say. > > E.g. the 5 extra lines setting some $Data::Dumper modules key seem rather > out of place to me. Thanks a lot for your feedback! I agree with you here, shortening some stuff would make things a little bit more readable. For now I'm going to remove the extra $Data::Dumper lines and shorten some of the data structure examples; in the latter case, I initially tried to show multiple possible values in things like returned file lists, e.g.: [ { 'crypt-mode' => "encrypt", filename => "qemu-server.conf.blob", size => 428 }, { 'crypt-mode' => "encrypt", filename => "drive-scsi0.img.fidx", size => 17179869184 }, { 'crypt-mode' => "sign-only", filename => "index.json.blob", size => 651 }, { filename => "client.log.blob" }, ... ] In this case, I'd shorten it to just the following: [ { 'crypt-mode' => "encrypt", filename => "qemu-server.conf.blob", size => 428 }, ... ] So, examples like that will be a little bit smaller in the next revision. Are there any other cases where you'd prefer to shorten things? I already tried to be as concise / clear as possible my wording, but maybe I'm overlooking something. _______________________________________________ pve-devel mailing list pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel