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)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DF54CCB01 for ; Wed, 16 Aug 2023 10:00:54 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id BA34E12779 for ; Wed, 16 Aug 2023 10:00:24 +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)) (No client certificate requested) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS for ; Wed, 16 Aug 2023 10:00:23 +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 90B014790F for ; Wed, 16 Aug 2023 10:00:23 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2023 10:00:22 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.13.1 Content-Language: en-US To: Proxmox VE development discussion , Dominik Csapak References: <20230816074146.1382923-1-d.csapak@proxmox.com> From: Fiona Ebner In-Reply-To: <20230816074146.1382923-1-d.csapak@proxmox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.464 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 NICE_REPLY_A -1.045 Looks like a legit reply (A) SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record URIBL_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked. See http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block for more information. [proxmox.com] Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH common] SectionConfig: fix handling unknown sections 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: Wed, 16 Aug 2023 08:00:54 -0000 Am 16.08.23 um 09:41 schrieb Dominik Csapak: > if we're parsing an unknown section, we cannot check the schema with > `is_array` to check if it's an array type or not, thus we have to > handle that separately. > > fix this by handling data in unknown sections like an array for all > analogous to "cb2646c7b4974e33f4148752deec71f0d589b0f3" in > proxmox-section-config. This way we can write unknown section out again > like we parsed it. Thank you for tackling this! As briefly discussed off-list, there, we only start interpreting data in unknown sections for keys appearing multiple times as an array. While it shouldn't make a difference if all we do with data in unknown sections is write it back out, the fact that most sections are not arrays makes it feel a bit more future-proof to do the same here. > > we have to adapt a single test case, which is ok since that is in an > `invalid` section of a config anyway. > > This fixes an issue, where calling `qm destroy ID --purge` removed much > of the configs ob backup jobs (since there we parse an 'unknown' section > and run into the `is_array` error) Reference https://forum.proxmox.com/threads/132091 > > Signed-off-by: Dominik Csapak > --- (...) > diff --git a/test/section_config_test.pl b/test/section_config_test.pl > index 02242bc..d574150 100755 > --- a/test/section_config_test.pl > +++ b/test/section_config_test.pl > @@ -217,7 +217,7 @@ my $with_unknown_data = { > }, > invalid => { > type => 'bad', > - common => 'omg', > + common => ['omg'], > }, > }, > order => enum(qw(t1 t2 invalid t3)), So this test doesn't expose the issue just because the "common" property is already defined. Please add a second test which uses an unknown property to expose the issue so we'd notice any future regression.