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 6276C8DD4D
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Thu, 10 Nov 2022 10:54:41 +0100 (CET)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 3C7C9246C7
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Thu, 10 Nov 2022 10:54:11 +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) server-digest SHA256)
 (No client certificate requested)
 by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Thu, 10 Nov 2022 10:54:10 +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 753D7422FF
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Thu, 10 Nov 2022 10:54:10 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <e261b3c2-f6d0-8f23-a6ee-a08e5ae03f98@proxmox.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2022 10:54:09 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:107.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/107.0
Content-Language: en-GB
To: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>,
 Dominik Csapak <d.csapak@proxmox.com>
References: <20221018140226.598710-1-d.csapak@proxmox.com>
 <20221018140226.598710-4-d.csapak@proxmox.com>
From: Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com>
In-Reply-To: <20221018140226.598710-4-d.csapak@proxmox.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results:  0
 AWL -0.032 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
Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH cluster v8 3/4] datacenter.cfg: add option
 for tag-style
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: Thu, 10 Nov 2022 09:54:41 -0000

w.r.t. to this one and the next patch:

I'd slightly prefer either having just a single property for all, or split it into two:
style and rest. The latter may have a small benefit w.r.t. to stability - if a parser/edit
bug sneaks in that breaks styling the access stuff might be still working, but depends
really on what scenario one imagines.

so either:

tags => {
   ...
    format => {
        'color-map' => {},
        'shape' => {},
        'access' => {},
        'access-list' => {}
        'registered' => {} # admin tags 
    },
}

(I also altered the property names a bit to drop the slightly redundant "tag" from the
inner ones and use registered for admin tags (no hard feelings on the latter one))

or

'tag-style' => {
   ...
    format => {
        'color-map' => {},
        'shape' => {},
    },
},
'tag-access' => {
   ...
    format => {
        'user-allow' => {},
        'user-allow-list' => {}
        'registered' => {} # admin tags, if not separate.
    },
},

but I don't think the tree properties are bad at all, just seems a bit bloated, probably
just because we rarely expand datacenter.cfg. So, I won't block this if you want to stick
to your originally formats.