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 DE7A76AA1F for ; Thu, 17 Mar 2022 08:57:39 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id CE28B2F6F5 for ; Thu, 17 Mar 2022 08:57:09 +0100 (CET) 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 21E1E2F6EA for ; Thu, 17 Mar 2022 08:57:09 +0100 (CET) Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id EBBD04291B for ; Thu, 17 Mar 2022 08:57:08 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2022 08:57:01 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.6.2 Content-Language: en-US To: Thomas Lamprecht , Proxmox VE development discussion , =?UTF-8?Q?Fabian_Gr=c3=bcnbichler?= References: <20211216121233.162288-1-f.ebner@proxmox.com> <20211216121233.162288-10-f.ebner@proxmox.com> <3c52b1a7-c53f-27de-f072-f8ddab32e102@proxmox.com> <3fc10567-ee00-5c5c-3879-131327d1a5ab@proxmox.com> From: Fabian Ebner In-Reply-To: <3fc10567-ee00-5c5c-3879-131327d1a5ab@proxmox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.122 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 -0.001 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 T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE -0.01 - Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH guest-common 1/1] vzdump: schema: add 'notes' and 'protected' properties 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: Thu, 17 Mar 2022 07:57:39 -0000 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.