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 45D401FF09B for ; Mon, 09 Nov 2026 14:34:11 +0100 (CET) Received: from gate001.proxmox.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by gate001.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id B656D21509; Mon, 09 Nov 2026 14:34:08 +0100 (CET) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Date: Mon, 09 Nov 2026 14:34:05 +0100 Message-Id: Subject: Re: [PATCH proxmox 0/3] oci: refactor code From: "Thomas Ellmenreich" To: "Filip Schauer" , X-Mailer: aerc 0.20.0 References: <20261103151153.290754-1-f.schauer@proxmox.com> In-Reply-To: <20261103151153.290754-1-f.schauer@proxmox.com> X-Bm-Milter-Handled: 55990f41-d878-4baa-be0a-ee34c49e34d2 X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp: 1794231245506 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.345 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: BG3IKNDKPUUXK55RWXUNHCYBLHG2CJIO X-Message-ID-Hash: BG3IKNDKPUUXK55RWXUNHCYBLHG2CJIO X-MailFrom: t.ellmenreich@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: Thanks for the patch and a good refactor in my opinion. I was just thinking that it might make sense to have a few more specific unit tests. As I see it, currently the tests cover most of the code, but only indirectly. That said, this is not super necessary, just wanted to mention it. Reviewed-by: Thomas Ellmenreich