From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: 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 818BA9F598 for ; Mon, 6 Nov 2023 11:32:49 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 6C81F14A20 for ; Mon, 6 Nov 2023 11:32:49 +0100 (CET) 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)) (No client certificate requested) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS for ; Mon, 6 Nov 2023 11:32:48 +0100 (CET) Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 9254E45B4C for ; Mon, 6 Nov 2023 11:32:48 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2023 11:32:47 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Content-Language: en-US From: Fiona Ebner To: Dominik Csapak , Proxmox VE development discussion Reply-To: Proxmox VE development discussion References: <20231103115343.4133611-1-d.csapak@proxmox.com> <20231103115343.4133611-3-d.csapak@proxmox.com> <0ca79682-9c69-4fdf-a4ca-73dfb0adc396@proxmox.com> <66a5548b-f8ff-48bc-bccd-d71ed5f4769f@proxmox.com> <7b552bd6-fbb2-45fc-84af-0498854c85c9@proxmox.com> In-Reply-To: <7b552bd6-fbb2-45fc-84af-0498854c85c9@proxmox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL -0.080 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 T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE -0.01 - Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [RFC PATCH guest-common 1/1] add profiles section config plugin X-BeenThere: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 06 Nov 2023 10:32:49 -0000 Am 06.11.23 um 11:12 schrieb Fiona Ebner: > Am 06.11.23 um 10:34 schrieb Dominik Csapak: >> On 11/6/23 10:22, Fiona Ebner wrote: >>> Am 03.11.23 um 12:53 schrieb Dominik Csapak: >>>> +my $defaultData = { >>>> +    propertyList => { >>>> +    type => { description => 'Profile type.' }, >>>> +    id => { >>>> +        type => 'string', >>>> +        description => "The ID of the profile.", >>>> +        format => 'pve-configid', >>>> +    }, >>> >>> The ID is usually not a property AFAIK. Doesn't this lead to duplication >>> when writing the section config, i.e. >>> >>> type: >>>     id >>> >>> ? Do we gain anything by having it be a property? >> >> mhm? the id has to be part of the properties, otherwise >> the generated api with 'createSchema' etc. would not include it. >> >> (it isn't always named id, e.g. in the storage plugins >> it's 'storage') >> > > I was just reminded of [0], where it could lead to that situation. Would > need to check if that patch still applies, because since then > Jobs/RealmSync.pm has been added. > > But somebody needs to filter the 'storage' property, right? Isn't that > property actually superfluous? > Well, it seems to be needed by the current storage config API implementation. For the backup job API, it's no issue if no 'id' property is declared explicitly in the config schema. > E.g. > > root@pve8a1 ~ # pvesm set pbsenc --storage foobar > root@pve8a1 ~ # pvesm add dir foo --storage bar --path /var/lib/vz > root@pve8a1 ~ # grep bar /etc/pve/storage.cfg > 1 root@pve8a1 ~ # > > [0]: https://lists.proxmox.com/pipermail/pve-devel/2022-November/054714.html >