From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com>
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 DFF676E479
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon, 23 Aug 2021 18:23:35 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id CCF0A26A31
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon, 23 Aug 2021 18:23:05 +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 id B9C8C26A23
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon, 23 Aug 2021 18:23:01 +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 8E22643613
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon, 23 Aug 2021 18:23:01 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <d8868feb-f751-71e2-de41-6021cb4dd27a@proxmox.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2021 18:22:55 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.0
Content-Language: en-GB
To: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>,
Fabian Ebner <f.ebner@proxmox.com>
References: <20210806125712.96863-1-f.ebner@proxmox.com>
From: Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com>
In-Reply-To: <20210806125712.96863-1-f.ebner@proxmox.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0
AWL 0.848 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address
BAYES_00 -1.9 Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1%
KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment
NICE_REPLY_A -0.959 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
Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [RFC common 1/1] REST environment: add static
log_warn function
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>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2021 16:23:35 -0000
On 06/08/2021 14:57, Fabian Ebner wrote:
> which can be called even when the environment is not initialized.
>
> Signed-off-by: Fabian Ebner <f.ebner@proxmox.com>
> ---
> src/PVE/RESTEnvironment.pm | 12 +++++++++---
> 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/src/PVE/RESTEnvironment.pm b/src/PVE/RESTEnvironment.pm
> index 189a6cd..4278966 100644
> --- a/src/PVE/RESTEnvironment.pm
> +++ b/src/PVE/RESTEnvironment.pm
> @@ -712,14 +712,20 @@ sub fork_worker {
> return wantarray ? ($upid, $res) : $upid;
> }
>
> -sub warn {
> - my ($self, $message) = @_;
> +sub log_warn {
> + my ($message) = @_;
>
> chomp($message);
>
> print STDERR "WARN: $message\n";
>
> - $self->{warning_count}++;
> + $rest_env->{warning_count}++ if $rest_env;
> +}
> +
> +sub warn {
> + my ($self, $message) = @_;
> +
> + log_warn($message);
> }
>
> # Abstract function
>
The approach seems OK-ish in general to me, was there any off-list discussion against this
or just not prioritized for review yet?