Skip to content
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.

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

Purge external storage and preserve dependencies #220

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: fix/147/purge-external-storage
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

Vrumf0ndel
Copy link
Contributor

Based on previous implementation of @ArtificialOwl.

Fixes #176

on external storage

Fixes nextcloud#176

Signed-off-by: Henning Salomon <[email protected]>
@Vrumf0ndel Vrumf0ndel changed the title Fix preserves dependent parent restoring points Purge external storage and preserve dependencies Mar 18, 2022
@Vrumf0ndel
Copy link
Contributor Author

@ArtificialOwl could you please review the PR for purge improvement of external storage? thanks in advance.

@jxmx
Copy link

jxmx commented Apr 2, 2022

I believe this logic is going to result in the same orphaning problem we already see. Please see Pull #219

@Vrumf0ndel
Copy link
Contributor Author

The purge logic of my PR is quite simple:
It just sorts the external points from newest to oldest, keeps the newest x points as configured, and in case of differential points it remembers the related parents of that items.
Then the remaining items are deleted one after another if they are not in the "parents to remember" list. So the needed parent items are save from purging process.
I have a separate NC test instance and tested it extensively, also it runs in my productive instance.
@jxmx What are your indications it would result in same orphaning problem as before?

@jxmx
Copy link

jxmx commented Apr 4, 2022

I see the logic now. Are you going to replace my #183 with the same logic then?

@ArtificialOwl
Copy link
Member

ArtificialOwl commented Sep 5, 2022

Hello @Vrumf0ndel

Thanks for your contribution, code looks good.
Can you please rebase it on master, or do you need #151 ?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants