From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: <s.hanreich@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) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by lists.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6BF03948ED for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Thu, 11 Apr 2024 07:21:47 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 4EC0A192F1 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Thu, 11 Apr 2024 07:21:17 +0200 (CEST) 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) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Thu, 11 Apr 2024 07:21:15 +0200 (CEST) Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 7E1A54448F for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Thu, 11 Apr 2024 07:21:15 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <a75667a2-5306-4479-92db-8a63485531a1@proxmox.com> Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2024 07:21:14 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird To: Lukas Wagner <l.wagner@proxmox.com>, Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com> References: <20240402171629.536804-1-s.hanreich@proxmox.com> <b6da8738-258e-4857-9405-d6047430b35c@proxmox.com> Content-Language: en-US From: Stefan Hanreich <s.hanreich@proxmox.com> In-Reply-To: <b6da8738-258e-4857-9405-d6047430b35c@proxmox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.563 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 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] [RFC container/firewall/manager/proxmox-firewall/qemu-server 00/37] proxmox firewall nftables implementation 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: Thu, 11 Apr 2024 05:21:47 -0000 On 4/10/24 12:25, Lukas Wagner wrote: > Did a relatively shallow review of the Rust parts, digging deeper only into > a smaller subset of the code. > Some aspects where I see room for improvement are mostly documentation, > as Max already mentioned, and some more automated testing. I think it would > greatly benefit the long-term maintainability of this tool to test the > the full 'config files' --> 'Command' transformation. This would require some > refactoring in the part reading the configuration, because currently the > config paths seem to be mostly hard coded. > Since `Command` is serializable anyway, we could have a nice test suite of > firewall/VM config files and expected commands as JSON dumps. > This will be tedious to setup at first, but will help to detect any unwanted > regressions in the long-term. Yes, that is certainly something that is on the menu, as we've already talked off-list using something like insta[1], which is already packaged, would be a good approach to this imo. [1] https://github.com/mitsuhiko/insta