Improve filename for generated backups #366

New Issue

3wordchant · 2022-12-10T19:23:33Z

3wordchant commented

2022-12-10 19:23:33 +00:00

Currently, running abra app backup foo.bar.com db, where foo.bar.com has a STACK_NAME set to keycloak results in a backup name like keycloak_db_623701256.tar.gz.

Two improvements:

Use the app name instead of STACK_NAME (STACK_NAME isn't really visible to operators elsewhere, and the ability to override it is mostly for legacy purposes?)
A human-readable date, e.g. like the output of date +"%FT%T%z", e.g. 2022-12-10T04:22:44-0000

Currently, running `abra app backup foo.bar.com db`, where `foo.bar.com` has a `STACK_NAME` set to `keycloak` results in a backup name like `keycloak_db_623701256.tar.gz`. Two improvements: 1. Use the app name instead of `STACK_NAME` (`STACK_NAME` isn't really visible to operators elsewhere, and the ability to override it is mostly for legacy purposes?) 2. A human-readable date, e.g. like the output of `date +"%FT%T%z"`, e.g. `2022-12-10T04:22:44-0000`

👍 1 🎉 1

3wordchant added the

enhancement

abra

labels 2022-12-10 19:23:34 +00:00

decentral1se commented

2023-01-22 17:24:38 +00:00

Use the app name instead of STACK_NAME (STACK_NAME isn't really visible to operators elsewhere, and the ability to override it is mostly for legacy purposes?)

It is kind of awkward to do because we have some code in the core that honours this edge case / legacy practice but then we'd have to implement a special case for not honouring it for backups. It would simplify the code if we didn't have to do this ofc. So, do we think it's worth it? Or should we aim instead to migrate recipe configs away from this STACK_NAME usage?

> Use the app name instead of STACK_NAME (STACK_NAME isn't really visible to operators elsewhere, and the ability to override it is mostly for legacy purposes?) It is kind of awkward to do because we have some code in the core that honours this edge case / legacy practice but then we'd have to implement a special case for not honouring it for backups. It would simplify the code if we didn't have to do this ofc. So, do we think it's worth it? Or should we aim instead to migrate recipe configs away from this `STACK_NAME` usage?

decentral1se commented

2023-01-22 17:48:45 +00:00

With the following:

func TimeStamp() string {
	ts := time.Now().UTC().Format(time.RFC3339)
	return strings.Replace(ts, ":", "-", -1)
}

I was able to get:

2023-01-22T17-47-16Z

Certainly more useful, anything that can be improved?

With the following: ```go func TimeStamp() string { ts := time.Now().UTC().Format(time.RFC3339) return strings.Replace(ts, ":", "-", -1) } ``` I was able to get: > 2023-01-22T17-47-16Z Certainly more useful, anything that can be improved?

❤️ 1

decentral1se referenced this issue from a commit

2023-01-22 17:51:08 +00:00

fix!: better backup file names

decentral1se closed this issue

2023-01-22 17:51:09 +00:00

decentral1se referenced this issue from toolshed/abra

2023-01-22 17:52:11 +00:00

fix: better backup file names #260

3wordchant commented

2023-01-22 18:16:35 +00:00

Great improvement for now, nice one!