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 8DCF664766
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Fri, 28 Jan 2022 09:21:31 +0100 (CET)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 7539C2BFC8
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Fri, 28 Jan 2022 09:21:01 +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 id 05E7A2BFBB
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Fri, 28 Jan 2022 09:21:01 +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 D276846CD9
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Fri, 28 Jan 2022 09:21:00 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <e8c1c439-bdae-2170-6098-8c5a4b2bbfd0@proxmox.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2022 09:21:00 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:97.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/97.0
Content-Language: en-US
To: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>,
 Dominik Csapak <d.csapak@proxmox.com>
References: <20220126181055.968385-1-t.lamprecht@proxmox.com>
 <0aa4348a-ccf1-f5e9-5e21-b69d079f0cb0@proxmox.com>
From: Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com>
In-Reply-To: <0aa4348a-ccf1-f5e9-5e21-b69d079f0cb0@proxmox.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results:  0
 AWL 0.062 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
 T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE    -0.01 -
Subject: [pve-devel] applied-series: [PATCH 1/2] use anyhow for result/error
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: Fri, 28 Jan 2022 08:21:31 -0000

On 27.01.22 13:39, Dominik Csapak wrote:
> looks sane and works (tested on pve & pbs)
> did not push them myself since the ldd diff made it
> necessary that i edited the patch file before applying locally...

oops, yeah makes sense - I now added '> ' quoting in front of it to avoid
that.

> so, for both patches:
> 
> Reviewed-by: Dominik Csapak <d.csapak@proxmox.com>
> Tested-by: Dominik Csapak <d.csapak@proxmox.com>

Thanks! I added those for the first patch but I had to change 2/2 slightly,
as ureq returns an error-result for all responses > 400 and so I had to
match that to get it to print our error and strictly allow only 200 codes.