From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <s.sterz@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) server-digest SHA256)
(No client certificate requested)
by lists.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D14179258F
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 28 Dec 2022 15:18:22 +0100 (CET)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id BA06F254AE
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 28 Dec 2022 15:18:22 +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>; Wed, 28 Dec 2022 15:18:21 +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 8877A44E41
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 28 Dec 2022 15:18:21 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <e3a71252-2aca-0e89-a68c-cd98a5b05fb9@proxmox.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2022 15:18:20 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/102.5.0
To: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>,
Fiona Ebner <f.ebner@proxmox.com>, Mira Limbeck <m.limbeck@proxmox.com>
References: <20221215165700.2061397-1-m.limbeck@proxmox.com>
<e93d44a1-806f-82d8-0820-e4a5fb19c778@proxmox.com>
Content-Language: en-US
From: Stefan Sterz <s.sterz@proxmox.com>
In-Reply-To: <e93d44a1-806f-82d8-0820-e4a5fb19c778@proxmox.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0
AWL 0.485 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 -1.147 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 manager] report: filter comments in VM/CT
configs
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: Wed, 28 Dec 2022 14:18:22 -0000
On 12/16/22 13:15, Fiona Ebner wrote:
> Am 15.12.22 um 17:57 schrieb Mira Limbeck:
>> diff --git a/PVE/Report.pm b/PVE/Report.pm
>> index 90b7cb1c..7ebe98f7 100644
>> --- a/PVE/Report.pm
>> +++ b/PVE/Report.pm
>> @@ -5,16 +5,34 @@ use warnings;
>>
>> use PVE::Tools;
>>
>> +my sub file2text {
>> + my ($file, $filter) = @_;
>> + my $text = "\n# cat $file\n";
>> +
>> + my $contents = PVE::Tools::file_get_contents($file);
>> + if ($filter) {
>> + foreach my $line (split('\n', $contents)) {
>> + next if $line =~ m/^\s*#/;
>> + next if $line =~ m/^cipassword/;
>> +
> Should we rather mask the value instead of dropping the whole line, so
> that we can see that /some/ cipassword is set? Might be more relevant
> for future filtered options.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> pve-devel mailing list
> pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com
> https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel
>
>
maybe somewhat off-topic for the patch at hand, but it might be nice to
modularize the pve report. so that `pvereport` gives you a default set
of information, but you could also use `pvereport ha` to give you more
information specifically about the state of the ha manager or `pvereport
ceph` for information about ceph etc.
maybe paired with a verbose flag so that you could request more detailed
info. e.g. `pvereport zfs` gives the zfs information currently in the
report, but `pvereport zfs -v` could also include `arc_summary` and `cat
/sys/module/zfs/parameters/zfs_arc_max` and other less often needed but
sometimes useful information.
this might be handy especially in cases where you need information that
spans several files/commands that aren't always needed. it might make
the `pvereport` more useful in the forum too, where we currently can't
use it at all because it discloses too much information.