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 83B9191266 for ; Mon, 26 Sep 2022 17:51:41 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 5CDD96889 for ; Mon, 26 Sep 2022 17:51:11 +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 for ; Mon, 26 Sep 2022 17:51:10 +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 E5D89444DF for ; Mon, 26 Sep 2022 17:51:09 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2022 17:51:09 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:106.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/106.0 Content-Language: en-GB To: Proxmox VE development discussion , Stefan Hanreich References: <20220922141321.1510795-1-s.hanreich@proxmox.com> From: Thomas Lamprecht In-Reply-To: <20220922141321.1510795-1-s.hanreich@proxmox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 1.856 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 -3.766 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 pve-container/qemu-server/pve-guest-common/pve-docs 0/1] Add pre/post-migrate hooks 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: Mon, 26 Sep 2022 15:51:41 -0000 Am 22/09/2022 um 16:13 schrieb Stefan Hanreich: > I have decided to create distinct event types for source/target nodes, since > otherwise the same script would run essentially twice on the source/target node. > With distinct event types, the hooks should be more flexible in their usage. just make that a parameter, same flexibility but less cmd explosion and complexity. Also, _iff_ (see reply we keep the CLI entries for pct/qm it should just be a single command there, any difference should be handled in the parameters; it's internal after all and we want to avoid that there's more internal commands then externals someday ;) Target and source should be part of the parameters on either call (pre/post, src/target), it is relevant info and should be easily available. Some param info like offline/online migration could be relevant too, but we can always extend on that, so in that regard it can be fine to stop smaller, to avoid going over board and having to keep all that info for backward compat. Any parameter would need to be encoded in the example then. Some more general note, the example is better than nothing, but a nice list/table directly in the docs would be really good to have. This could be done upfront, before adding new hooks - best for now to duplicate it for both CT and VM chapter (if sensible it can live in its own guest-hook-list.adoc and just get included twice). Including the example script as an appendix would be a nice touch too.