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?