Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH guest-common 1/1] vzdump: schema: add 'notes' and 'protected' properties

[Fabian Ebner <f.ebner@proxmox.com>]

Am 16.03.22 um 19:25 schrieb Thomas Lamprecht:
> On 16.03.22 12:04, Fabian Ebner wrote:
>> Am 16.12.21 um 13:12 schrieb Fabian Ebner:
>>
>> Fabian G.:
>> we could offer something like a simple template system that allows
>> substitution of certain variables (like name, or source node
>> hostname/clustername, ..). or just a boolean switch for setting VM/CT
>> $HOSTNAME from $CLUSTER/$NODENAME (or an enum, with
>> [job-comment,hostname,long,none] where long is that, and hostname is
>> just the guest hostname, and job-comment is the comment of the vzdump
>> job if one is set)
>>
>> Me:
>> The template variant would be the most flexible one and would avoid the
>> need for a second vzdump option besides --notes. Ideally, support for it
>> would be there from the beginning though, as otherwise it will stop
>> working for a user wanting to literally set $HOSTNAME when we add it ;)
>> The downside is that it doesn't match the volume-level --notes option,
>> but I don't think that should be a big deal.
>>
>> Fabian G.:
>> well it could just be called notes-template for vzdump to disambiguate?
> 
> 
> fwiw, I believe I commented that approach in the internal chat a while ago,
> but as its search functions are abysmal I don't find it anymore.
> 
> IIRC, just extend what we have now and allow a fixed set of {VARS} (vmid,
> guest name, host name, job-id, ..?).

I might be misunderstanding, but we don't have anything right now,
because this patch would be the one introducing the option?

> 
> While extending one has a slight chance of changing an existing setup I find
> this very unlikely in this specific case, as we had no such feature whatsoever
> and it makes not sense in any practical example to use such special strings
> for a backup comment.

Yes, I'd simply document the list of currently valid variables, and that
it might be extended in the future.

> 
> That said, if one can whip up another reason besides backward compat for
> having a separate flag to turn this on/off then feel free to comment.
> 
> I mean, for the backup jobs itself it could have some value to differ
> between the comment about the job itself and a comment template for the
> resulting backups.

Yes, I think it'd be better to not mix the job's comment (which is part
of the generic job properties) and the vzdump-specific notes{-template}
which this patch (or rather a future version of it) will introduce.