Skip to content

feat!: Add more locking possibilities #307

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom
Draft
aawsome wants to merge 2 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from
Draft

feat!: Add more locking possibilities #307

aawsome wants to merge 2 commits into from

Conversation

@aawsome
Copy link
Member

@aawsome aawsome commented Oct 5, 2024 •
edited
Loading

based on #163

see rustic-rs/rustic#1050

BREAKING CHANGES:

  • DeleteOptions in SnapshotFile now has more enum options.
  • Repository::save_snapshots now returns the list of Ids of the saved snapshots.
  • RepoId now must also impl Debug

Missing points:

  • Handle duplicate snapshots correctly - especially create at max. 1 new snapshot per "original" snapshot during lock
  • Handle locks in forget command (retention policy: only count one/the original snapshot for retention)
  • Handle locks correctly in the tag command (don't even try to remove locked snapshots)

@aawsome aawsome marked this pull request as draft October 5, 2024 06:32
@aawsome aawsome changed the title Lock more Add more locking possibilities Oct 5, 2024
@aawsome aawsome changed the title Add more locking possibilities feat!: Add more locking possibilities Oct 5, 2024
@simonsan simonsan added M-breaking Meta: Breaking change C-enhancement Category: New feature or request A-backends Area: Related to backends in rustic_core S-blocked Status: Blocked from merging/working on due to some issue labels Oct 5, 2024
@simonsan
Copy link
Contributor

simonsan commented Oct 5, 2024

Blocked on #163: PR requires some changes and maybe a discussion about Lock design as a type state for a backend? Not entirely sure, if that would be a good approach as the expectation on a backend with a lock is not completely clear to me.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Reviewers

No reviews

Assignees

No one assigned

Labels

A-backends Area: Related to backends in rustic_core C-enhancement Category: New feature or request M-breaking Meta: Breaking change S-blocked Status: Blocked from merging/working on due to some issue

Projects

None yet

Milestone

No milestone

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants

@aawsome @simonsan