From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: <pve-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com> Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [212.224.123.68]) by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E60221FF16F for <inbox@lore.proxmox.com>; Tue, 27 May 2025 09:37:23 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 220E1DFBB; Tue, 27 May 2025 09:37:35 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <b23c3fb6-8e8c-4ae1-81f9-9155b535506f@proxmox.com> Date: Tue, 27 May 2025 09:37:31 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird To: Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com>, Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com> References: <20250520090818.44881-1-m.koeppl@proxmox.com> <20250520090818.44881-2-m.koeppl@proxmox.com> <eb43d943-9094-4942-8bb5-75367214a2cf@proxmox.com> <92f78ba0-44bb-41e9-b43b-9e4b0b47390b@proxmox.com> From: =?UTF-8?Q?Michael_K=C3=B6ppl?= <m.koeppl@proxmox.com> Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: <92f78ba0-44bb-41e9-b43b-9e4b0b47390b@proxmox.com> X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.004 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 container v6 1/4] fix #3711: lxc: print warning if storage for mounted volume does not exist anymore 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> Reply-To: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: pve-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com Sender: "pve-devel" <pve-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com> On 5/22/25 08:08, Thomas Lamprecht wrote: > nit: in general: use the full width for comments (at least 80cc, 100c is totally fine > too). > > But most of the comment reads as description for what happens, which is relatively > obvious from reading the code here, e.g. a "log_warn" call isn't exactly complex, but > rather telling on its own already. > > While comments can really help, they mostly do when they state the things that are > not already obvious from reading the code in the local context already, like, e.g., > "distant" effects or assumptions, or if it really is complex and there is not a > good way to simplify the code. > > If one want's a comment here it probably would be enough to write something like: > > # storages can be removed while volumes still exist, check that for better UX. > > > Note that your single comment is not a problem on it's own, but having a lot of > these makes reading code harder and as especially long comments describing the > code itself, and not the reasons, why's and other such rationale, tend to get > outdated fast, making it even more confusing to read. > > That doesn't mean no comments though, but if, then please lets favor succinct > comments focusing on background, one or maybe two lines should be enough for most > code that benefits from having one. Exceptions naturally exist, e.g., if you write > some crypto code (please don't, as that's even hard to get right for field experts > with dozens of years of good experience, but just as example) then having more > comment than code would even be expected. I opted for wrapping the delete_mountpoint_volume in an eval in this case, so the comment wasn't necessary anymore, but I'll keep that in mind. I definitely understand the need for succinct comments. Thanks for the feedback! Also, I won't be sending patches with crypto code anytime soon, I promise ;) > >>> + my ($storeid) = PVE::Storage::parse_volume_id($volume); >>> + eval { PVE::Storage::storage_config($storage_cfg, $storeid) }; >>> + my $err = $@; >>> + PVE::RESTEnvironment::log_warn("failed to delete $volume, $err") if $err; >>> + >>> + if (!$err) { >>> + delete_mountpoint_volume($storage_cfg, $vmid, $volume); >>> + } >> >> Can we instead just surround the delete_mountpoint_volume() call itself >> with an eval + printing warning? That also catches other situations >> where deletion fails and is simpler. > > Yeah, that would be nicer. As in > > eval { > foo(); > bar(); > } > # ... error handling > > The bar method won't be called if foo dies. > >> >>> }; >>> PVE::LXC::Config->foreach_volume_full($conf, {include_unused => 1}, $remove_volume); >>> _______________________________________________ pve-devel mailing list pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel