Am 16.08.23 um 09:41 schrieb Dominik Csapak: > if we're parsing an unknown section, we cannot check the schema with > `is_array` to check if it's an array type or not, thus we have to > handle that separately. > > fix this by handling data in unknown sections like an array for all > analogous to "cb2646c7b4974e33f4148752deec71f0d589b0f3" in > proxmox-section-config. This way we can write unknown section out again > like we parsed it.
Thank you for tackling this! As briefly discussed off-list, there, we only start interpreting data in unknown sections for keys appearing multiple times as an array. While it shouldn't make a difference if all we do with data in unknown sections is write it back out, the fact that most sections are not arrays makes it feel a bit more future-proof to do the same here. > > we have to adapt a single test case, which is ok since that is in an > `invalid` section of a config anyway. > > This fixes an issue, where calling `qm destroy ID --purge` removed much > of the configs ob backup jobs (since there we parse an 'unknown' section > and run into the `is_array` error) Reference https://forum.proxmox.com/threads/132091 > > Signed-off-by: Dominik Csapak <d.csa...@proxmox.com> > --- (...) > diff --git a/test/section_config_test.pl b/test/section_config_test.pl > index 02242bc..d574150 100755 > --- a/test/section_config_test.pl > +++ b/test/section_config_test.pl > @@ -217,7 +217,7 @@ my $with_unknown_data = { > }, > invalid => { > type => 'bad', > - common => 'omg', > + common => ['omg'], > }, > }, > order => enum(qw(t1 t2 invalid t3)), So this test doesn't expose the issue just because the "common" property is already defined. Please add a second test which uses an unknown property to expose the issue so we'd notice any future regression. _______________________________________________ pve-devel mailing list pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel
