From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from gate001.proxmox.com (gate001.proxmox.com [IPv6:2a0f:8001:1:32::40]) by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 112901FF0C2 for ; Thu, 22 Oct 2026 16:29:44 +0200 (CEST) Received: from gate001.proxmox.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by gate001.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 784FE216CF; Thu, 22 Oct 2026 16:29:42 +0200 (CEST) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2026 16:29:39 +0200 Message-Id: To: "Lukas Wagner" , , Subject: Re: [PATCH proxmox v5 20/42] notify: matcher: expression: reject ambiguous field matchers From: =?utf-8?q?Michael_K=C3=B6ppl?= X-Mailer: aerc 0.22.0 References: <20261022121608.271515-1-l.wagner@proxmox.com> <20261022121608.271515-21-l.wagner@proxmox.com> In-Reply-To: <20261022121608.271515-21-l.wagner@proxmox.com> X-Bm-Milter-Handled: 55990f41-d878-4baa-be0a-ee34c49e34d2 X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp: 1792679379663 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.227 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address DMARC_MISSING 0.1 Missing DMARC policy KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment (newer systems) RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED -2.3 Sender listed at https://www.dnswl.org/, medium trust SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record Message-ID-Hash: YV3D6QVFBUKCJ6OA4A237OLULG7VU7G7 X-Message-ID-Hash: YV3D6QVFBUKCJ6OA4A237OLULG7VU7G7 X-MailFrom: m.koeppl@proxmox.com X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; loop; banned-address; emergency; member-moderation; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.10 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion List-Help: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Looks good to me. Also quickly tested with pvesh, just to be sure. Works as expected. Tested-by: Michael K=C3=B6ppl Reviewed-by: Michael K=C3=B6ppl On Thu Oct 22, 2026 at 2:15 PM CEST, Lukas Wagner wrote: > Otherwise, API users could create field matchers that set both, the > 'values' and the 'regex' field, with one field being ignored when > serialized/evaluated. > > Suggested-by: Michael K=C3=B6ppl > Signed-off-by: Lukas Wagner > --- > > Notes: > New in v5. [snip]