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 8CC908AA63 for ; Fri, 21 Oct 2022 09:13:57 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 3DCAF1E6CF for ; Fri, 21 Oct 2022 09:13:57 +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 ; Fri, 21 Oct 2022 09:13:56 +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 3601444AF5 for ; Fri, 21 Oct 2022 09:13:56 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2022 09:13:55 +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: Stefan Sterz , Proxmox VE development discussion References: <20221020071704.46578-1-s.sterz@proxmox.com> <20221020071704.46578-2-s.sterz@proxmox.com> <2d020cdd-9cea-48ef-d267-94bcc37d0b27@proxmox.com> <573cedfe-f43d-d219-7302-263622172a1f@proxmox.com> From: Thomas Lamprecht In-Reply-To: <573cedfe-f43d-d219-7302-263622172a1f@proxmox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL -0.034 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 manager v3 2/2] ui: only allow rbd pools to be added as rbd storage 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: Fri, 21 Oct 2022 07:13:57 -0000 Am 21/10/2022 um 09:02 schrieb Stefan Sterz: >> // filter out rgw, metadata, cephfs, ... pools >> onlyRBDPools =3D ({data}) =3D> !!data?.applications?.rbd; >> >> > i see your point on variable naming, but this isn't equivalent afaiu. argh, yeah you're right > the idea here was that the ui reverts back to including a pool if there= > is no application defined for it (this should help make the ui change > independent from the api change). this wouldn't do that. you could do: >=20 > onlyRBDPools =3D ({ data }) =3D> !data?.applications || > !!data?.applications?.rbd >=20 > imo still pretty long, but maybe you have another trick up your > sleeve =F0=9F=98=84 maybe (untested): onlyRBDPools =3D ({ data }) =3D> (data?.applications ?? { rbd: true }).rb= d; But at that point we're rather heading in direction of code golf, so just= use whatever you think works good and is understandable enough, I won't bikeshed the style of this fillter fn anymore ;P >=20 > if you don't care about keeping the front-end compatible with the > previous behavior we can also use your one-liner. just wanted to err on= > the side of caution. >=20 > as a sidenote: personally i also prefer checking for undefined-ness to > relying on its falsy nature. e.g. if application.rbd =3D null, this wou= ld > also return false, even though technically rbd is defined. since ceph > seems to return empty objects for rbd pools by default, this currently > works fine. however, id prefer being more explicit. this is just a > personal preference though, so i'll do whatever you prefer =F0=9F=98=84= in general OK but with the point of not being sure what cephs defined behaviour is, or will be, checking falsy can even be a feature not a bug,= otoh. ceph releases are controlled by us and have a relatively low freque= ncy, if it ever changes we'll be able to fix it just fine in time. >=20 > there is also the "in" operator, but if irc another patch of mine once > got rejected for using that. >=20 >> more generally, the application could be also shown in our ceph pool l= ist, could >> be useful to see the usage type of each pool, would also reduce confus= ion for the >> a bit odd metadata pool with its single PG. >> > sure i suppose that makes sense, i can add that to a v4. >=20 can, and probably should be in a separate series, just noticed and mentio= ned before I forgot again ;-)