Replace repository checking logic #47
Merged
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
|
I agree with not using |
|
Wo 8000 uld be nice if the two of you could test this logic with your existing setups. Every remote might behave slightly different. Besides that I'm ready to merge, feel free to squash merge to one commit (saw that you've used merge commit last time, which leaves the commit graph in quite a messy state) |
|
Awesome, works for me on my (SFTP-based) repository. But before merging this, let's discuss the right way to solve it in #48 . |
|
Agreed! |
jeankhawand
pushed a commit
to jeankhawand/resticker
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 30, 2024
Replace repository checking logic
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Closes #37
I believe this covers everything the old code caught. It's not much logic besides a lot of logging. Decision to go with
cat configfollows restic/restic#1690 (comment) - we should watch out for a "check" command implemented in the future.Major change: So far the initial check could have failed and the backup would still have been scheduled. Now if the check does not succeed the container will fail during initialization.
Quick words about
SKIP_INIT_CHECK: I intentionally did not document this variable. It shouldn't be a feature but rather a workaround for users with serious reasons to resort to it. Also, if after this PR is merged a user complains about issues, the variable can serve as a 0-day fix before we understand the needed improvement.