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 16AAD1FF16F
for <inbox@lore.proxmox.com>; Tue, 29 Apr 2025 10:44:36 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 5968E6FD7;
Tue, 29 Apr 2025 10:44:47 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <b2d0aa33-b681-4e77-836b-d84546bd938d@proxmox.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2025 10:44:44 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
To: Fiona Ebner <f.ebner@proxmox.com>,
Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
References: <20250325151254.193177-1-d.kral@proxmox.com>
<20250325151254.193177-7-d.kral@proxmox.com>
<6f5df6e4-2f78-4562-bc77-9fe992f0d9a6@proxmox.com>
Content-Language: en-US
From: Daniel Kral <d.kral@proxmox.com>
In-Reply-To: <6f5df6e4-2f78-4562-bc77-9fe992f0d9a6@proxmox.com>
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0
AWL 0.012 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] [PATCH ha-manager 05/15] rules: add colocation rule
plugin
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-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"
Errors-To: pve-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com
Sender: "pve-devel" <pve-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com>
On 4/25/25 16:05, Fiona Ebner wrote:
> Not much to add to Fabian's review :)
>
> Am 25.03.25 um 16:12 schrieb Daniel Kral:
>> diff --git a/src/PVE/HA/Rules/Colocation.pm b/src/PVE/HA/Rules/Colocation.pm
>> new file mode 100644
>> index 0000000..808d48e
>> --- /dev/null
>> +++ b/src/PVE/HA/Rules/Colocation.pm
>> @@ -0,0 +1,391 @@
>> +package PVE::HA::Rules::Colocation;
>> +
>> +use strict;
>> +use warnings;
>> +
>> +use Data::Dumper;
>> +
>> +use PVE::JSONSchema qw(get_standard_option);
>
> Missing include of PVE::Tools.
>
> Nit: I'd put a blank here to separate modules from different packages
> and modules from the same package.
>
>> +use PVE::HA::Tools;
>> +
>> +use base qw(PVE::HA::Rules);
>> +
>> +sub type {
>> + return 'colocation';
>> +}
>> +
>> +sub properties {
>> + return {
>> + services => get_standard_option('pve-ha-resource-id-list'),
>> + affinity => {
>> + description => "Describes whether the services are supposed to be kept on separate"
>> + . " nodes, or are supposed to be kept together on the same node.",
>> + type => 'string',
>> + enum => ['separate', 'together'],
>> + optional => 0,
>> + },
>> + strict => {
>> + description => "Describes whether the colocation rule is mandatory or optional.",
>> + type => 'boolean',
>> + optional => 0,
>> + },
>> + }
>
> Style nit: missing semicolon
>
> Since we should move the property definitions to the base module once a
> second plugin re-uses them later: should we already declare 'services'
> and 'strict' in the base module to start out? Then we could implement
> the encode/decode part for 'services' there already. Less moving around
> or duplication later on.
Yes, especially as Fabian also agreed that it would make sense that
users are allowed to make location rules for multiple services in a
single rule.
I'll start to use the isolated_properties option that @Dominik
implemented so that other options can be separated and have
plugin-specific descriptions, etc. but services can definitely live with
a more general description.
>
>> +}
>> +
>> +sub options {
>> + return {
>> + services => { optional => 0 },
>> + strict => { optional => 0 },
>> + affinity => { optional => 0 },
>> + comment => { optional => 1 },
>> + };
>> +};
>> +
>> +sub decode_value {
>> + my ($class, $type, $key, $value) = @_;
>> +
>> + if ($key eq 'services') {
>> + my $res = {};
>> +
>> + for my $service (PVE::Tools::split_list($value)) {
>> + if (PVE::HA::Tools::pve_verify_ha_resource_id($service)) {
>> + $res->{$service} = 1;
>> + }
>> + }
>> +
>> + return $res;
>> + }
>> +
>> + return $value;
>> +}
>> +
>> +sub encode_value {
>> + my ($class, $type, $key, $value) = @_;
>> +
>> + if ($key eq 'services') {
>> + PVE::HA::Tools::pve_verify_ha_resource_id($_) for (keys %$value);
>
> Style nit:
> [I] febner@dev8 /usr/share/perl5/PVE> ag "for keys" | wc -l
> 28
> [I] febner@dev8 /usr/share/perl5/PVE> ag "for \(keys" | wc -l
> 0
ACK, will change that :)
>
>> +
>> + return join(',', keys %$value);
>> + }
>> +
>> + return $value;
>> +}
>> +
>
> ---snip 8<---
>
>> +=head3 check_service_count($rules)
>> +
>> +Returns a list of conflicts caused by colocation rules, which do not have
>> +enough services in them, defined in C<$rules>.
>> +
>> +If there are no conflicts, the returned list is empty.
>> +
>> +=cut
>> +
>> +sub check_services_count {
>> + my ($rules) = @_;
>> +
>> + my $conflicts = [];
>> +
>> + foreach_colocation_rule($rules, sub {
>> + my ($rule, $ruleid) = @_;
>> +
>> + push @$conflicts, $ruleid if (scalar(keys %{$rule->{services}}) < 2);
>
> Style nit: parentheses for post-if
>
ACK, removed the outer parentheses
_______________________________________________
pve-devel mailing list
pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com
https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel