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 8E5859846D for ; Wed, 15 Nov 2023 11:01:37 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 64AF82E4C for ; Wed, 15 Nov 2023 11:01:37 +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)) (No client certificate requested) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS for ; Wed, 15 Nov 2023 11:01:36 +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 A590C42F03 for ; Wed, 15 Nov 2023 11:01:36 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2023 11:01:35 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Content-Language: en-US To: Philipp Hufnagl , Proxmox VE development discussion References: <20231114142714.27578-1-p.hufnagl@proxmox.com> <0c9cd0e3-fecc-453c-9238-8dc249b0a0d0@proxmox.com> From: Fiona Ebner In-Reply-To: <0c9cd0e3-fecc-453c-9238-8dc249b0a0d0@proxmox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL -0.079 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address BAYES_00 -1.9 Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% DMARC_MISSING 0.1 Missing DMARC policy 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: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH storage] fix #5008: prevent adding pbs storage with invalid namespace 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: Wed, 15 Nov 2023 10:01:37 -0000 Am 15.11.23 um 10:37 schrieb Philipp Hufnagl: > > > On 11/15/23 09:31, Fiona Ebner wrote: >> Am 14.11.23 um 15:27 schrieb Philipp Hufnagl: >>> @@ -826,10 +837,18 @@ sub activate_storage { >>> die "$storeid: $@" if $@; >>> >>> my $datastore = $scfg->{datastore}; >>> + my $namespace = $scfg->{namespace}; >>> >>> for my $ds (@$datastores) { >>> if ($ds->{store} eq $datastore) { >>> - return 1; >>> + return 1 if !defined($namespace); >>> + my $namespaces = eval { scan_namespaces($scfg, $datastore, $password) }; >> >> Why use eval and ignore the error here? Like that users (and we) won't >> know if the api request or connection failed and just get the error >> message from below about permissions/existence then. > > I tried to mimic the behavior from scan_datastores(). Did I make a > mistake there? Is the way of scan_datastores() deprecated or bad practice? >> There, the error is not ignored, but propagated: > my $datastores = eval { scan_datastores($scfg, $password) }; > die "$storeid: $@" if $@;