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 5957D6877C
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Thu, 9 Sep 2021 18:10:41 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 4D970AC46
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Thu, 9 Sep 2021 18:10:11 +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 id 39B29AC35
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Thu, 9 Sep 2021 18:10:10 +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 01CF644654
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Thu, 9 Sep 2021 18:10:10 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <e733db37-92bf-a796-b573-e13e813d9352@proxmox.com>
Date: Thu, 9 Sep 2021 18:09:37 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:92.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/92.0
Content-Language: en-US
To: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>,
Fabian Ebner <f.ebner@proxmox.com>
References: <20210909095801.101797-1-f.ebner@proxmox.com>
From: Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com>
In-Reply-To: <20210909095801.101797-1-f.ebner@proxmox.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0
AWL 0.292 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
SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record
SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record
Subject: [pve-devel] applied: [PATCH storage] prune {validate,
mark}: preserve input parameter
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, 09 Sep 2021 16:10:41 -0000
On 09.09.21 11:58, Fabian Ebner wrote:
> While the current way to detect settings like { 'keep-last' => 0 } is
> concise, it's also wrong, because but the delete operation is visible
> to the caller. This resulted in e.g.
> # $hash is { 'keep-all' => 1 }
> my $s = print_property_string($hash, 'prune-backups');
> # $hash is now {}, $s is 'keep-all=1'
> because validation is called in print_property_string. The same issue
> is present when calling prune_mark_backup_group.
>
> Because validation complains when keep-all and something else is set,
> this shouldn't have caused any real issues, besides vzdump with
> keep-all=1 wrongly taking the removal path, but without any settings,
> so not removing anything:
> INFO: prune older backups with retention:
> INFO: pruned 0 backup(s)
>
> Signed-off-by: Fabian Ebner <f.ebner@proxmox.com>
> ---
> PVE/Storage.pm | 5 ++---
> PVE/Storage/Plugin.pm | 7 ++++---
> 2 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>
>
applied, thanks!