You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
user-callback runs with $3=4 when there is an error. This generally functions fine. However, if the user-callback runs for a different reason (e.g. $3=1 Backup process begins), and the user-callback script subsequently fails, I would have expected the user-callback to be called again for this error (i.e. run again with $3=4). This does not occur.
FWIW @emtiu was not sure if this was a bug, so happy for this to be closed if this is the expected behaviour. My instinct was to put all the "error-fixing" stuff in the $3=4 section of the user-callback. I think this is neater, but it relies on this section being called when the user-callback fails. Alternatively (if this is not a bug, but expected behaviour), users would have to duplicate the "error-fixing" part themselves, by calling this function not only in $3=4, but also checking for errors in each other section, and calling that "error-fixing" function separately. One additional complication is if my $3=4 fails, then this could spawn an infinite loop. Perhaps that is dangerous enough to not fix this.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Backintime installed from the AUR.
user-callback runs with
$3=4
when there is an error. This generally functions fine. However, if the user-callback runs for a different reason (e.g.$3=1
Backup process begins), and the user-callback script subsequently fails, I would have expected the user-callback to be called again for this error (i.e. run again with$3=4
). This does not occur.FWIW @emtiu was not sure if this was a bug, so happy for this to be closed if this is the expected behaviour. My instinct was to put all the "error-fixing" stuff in the
$3=4
section of the user-callback. I think this is neater, but it relies on this section being called when the user-callback fails. Alternatively (if this is not a bug, but expected behaviour), users would have to duplicate the "error-fixing" part themselves, by calling this function not only in$3=4
, but also checking for errors in each other section, and calling that "error-fixing" function separately. One additional complication is if my$3=4
fails, then this could spawn an infinite loop. Perhaps that is dangerous enough to not fix this.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: