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 [IPv6:2a01:7e0:0:424::9])
	by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8A2931FF13F
	for <inbox@lore.proxmox.com>; Thu, 26 Mar 2026 13:17:55 +0100 (CET)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 4093F1075D;
	Thu, 26 Mar 2026 13:18:15 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <ca435864-3615-403c-8e4c-3cb7737c7d4e@proxmox.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2026 13:17:41 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Subject: Re: [PATCH proxmox-ve-rs 3/9] frr: allow rendering
 prefix-lists/route-maps separately
To: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com
References: <20260325094142.174364-1-s.hanreich@proxmox.com>
 <20260325094142.174364-6-s.hanreich@proxmox.com>
 <tezqf7vl23gxuklvywycrzcjegczsx3hxjiwwk4efveswmragh@zauyc5shfyuc>
Content-Language: en-US
From: Stefan Hanreich <s.hanreich@proxmox.com>
In-Reply-To: <tezqf7vl23gxuklvywycrzcjegczsx3hxjiwwk4efveswmragh@zauyc5shfyuc>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results:  0
	AWL                     0.715 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
Message-ID-Hash: Y7PKZJDQHI5SVJRB3FLKXDL2P2BZMO7Y
X-Message-ID-Hash: Y7PKZJDQHI5SVJRB3FLKXDL2P2BZMO7Y
X-MailFrom: s.hanreich@proxmox.com
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; loop;
 banned-address; emergency; member-moderation; nonmember-moderation;
 administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation;
 no-subject; digests; suspicious-header
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.10
Precedence: list
List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel.lists.proxmox.com>
List-Help: <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:pve-devel-owner@lists.proxmox.com>
List-Post: <mailto:pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:pve-devel-join@lists.proxmox.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:pve-devel-leave@lists.proxmox.com>

On 3/25/26 3:31 PM, Gabriel Goller wrote:
> On 25.03.2026 10:41, Stefan Hanreich wrote:
>> This is mainly useful for integration tests for the route maps /
>> prefix lists feature in ve-config. It utilizes those methods to render
>> route maps and prefix lists in tests, without having to render a full
>> FRR configuration.
> 
> Why can't we move the inline tests into a tests/ dir (maybe in ve-config for now)
> and just generate the whole config (using Default we should be able to just omit
> the rest of the config)? IMO this is a bit weird having these two test-helpers
> here. This also doesn't catch errors importing the jinja template.

The idea was that this is less prone to changes outside of the
prefix_list / access_list template (e.g. FRR version bumps) and doesn't
require us to include the sections before / after the FRR configuration
in the assertions. I guess moving this into its own integration test and
using Default::default is better...