[pbs-devel] [PATCH proxmox-backup] fix #5622: backup client: properly handle rate/burst parameters

[Dominik Csapak]

On 8/7/24 21:20, Thomas Lamprecht wrote:
> On 23/07/2024 12:04, Dominik Csapak wrote:
>> the rate and burst parameters are integers, so the mapping from value
>> with `.as_str()` will always return `None` effectively never
>> applying any rate limit at all.
>>
>> To fix it, just map from u64 to HumanByte.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Dominik Csapak <d.csapak at proxmox.com>
>> ---
>>
>> Alternatively, we could introduce a new string schema to parse into
>> HumanByte, if that's preferred. (Did not do it that way, because this
>> fix was way faster for me and is also OK in my opinion).
> 
> I mean, tbh. it seems like this was the original intention, i.e. that one can
> also pass HumanByte here, which would be pretty convenient.
> 
> FWIW, this was u64 back when added and there's a commit that changes this in a
> (buggy) way to the as_str, when HumanByte got introduced:
> 
> 2d5287fb ("use RateLimitConfig for HttpClient and pull")
> 
> Sadly the comment message of this and the previous ones are basically
> non-existent, but I faintly remember that Dietmar and I talked about this back
> then, and I'm pretty sure that my stance back then is as now: I find it odd
> that the API and config can have this written in HumanByte form but not on the
> CLI, where it'd be actually the most useful place; as the API is either
> accessed through web UI, where one can transform this from a human readable
> form to bytes or through a automation system, which normally have ways to
> allow X*1024 or the like calculations.
> 
> So I'd rather go towards a HuamnByte based schema, albeit as the
> TRAFFIC_CONTROL_RATE_SCHEMA and TRAFFIC_CONTROL_BURST_SCHEMA are only used
> in the client CLI code anyway I'd actually drop them from pbs-api-types as
> they are obviously confusing (not used in the actual API) and either declare a
> ClientRateLimitConfig struct there (that is then flattened in the client backup
> schema definition) or just have something directly in the client code.
> 

Sure, make sense, I'll see that I take the time to do that, thanks for the input!