> +if (($conf->{protection}) && ($conf->{protection} == 1))
> {
What is the purpose of this strict test? I thought the following is good enough:
if ($conf->{protection}) { ...
___
pve-devel mailing list
pve-devel@pve.proxmox.com
The code is still clumsy - to show what I mean I just left the
'+' lines and removed everything else.
> +if (($conf->{protection}) && ($conf->{protection} == 1))
> {
> +die "can't remove VM $vmid storage - protection mode
> enabled\n";
> +
The thing is that the checks are always repeated, but the error messages
are different.
I can still add a new common subroutine. Now it actually make sense.
On 09/10/2015 05:24 PM, Alen Grizonic wrote:
Agree. I also like non duplicated code, so I'll fix it and add an
additional restriction
v5 changes:
- disk removal prevention -> added unused disk removal prevention
- protection option removal prevention
- changed man page message
---
PVE/API2/Qemu.pm | 8
PVE/QemuServer.pm | 2 +-
2 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/PVE/API2/Qemu.pm
Agree. I also like non duplicated code, so I'll fix it and add an
additional restriction right away.
Thanks.
On 09/10/2015 05:19 PM, Dietmar Maurer wrote:
The code is still clumsy - to show what I mean I just left the
'+' lines and removed everything else.
+if
> > +if (($conf->{protection}) && ($conf->{protection} ==
> > 1))
> > {
>
> What is the purpose of this strict test? I thought the following is good
> enough:
>
> if ($conf->{protection}) { ...
I will try to explain more elaborate.
We use type 'boolean' for the
Dietmar, sorry for the delayed reply. Yes, we can use just
if ($conf->{protection}) { ...
On 09/10/2015 04:59 PM, Dietmar Maurer wrote:
+if (($conf->{protection}) && ($conf->{protection} ==
1))
{
What is the purpose of this strict test? I thought the following is good
> The thing is that the checks are always repeated, but the error messages
> are different.
I can't see any strict need for those different error messages.
Instead, a common error message makes more sense to me, because the
reason is always the same.
