[Enhancement] Progress Bar #106
Labels
No Label
bug
data loss
design finalized
good first issue
new feature area
question / support
security
waiting for response
No Milestone
No Assignees
2 Participants
Notifications
Due Date
No due date set.
Dependencies
No dependencies set.
Reference: borgmatic-collective/borgmatic#106
Loading…
Reference in New Issue
No description provided.
Delete Branch "%!s(<nil>)"
Deleting a branch is permanent. Although the deleted branch may continue to exist for a short time before it actually gets removed, it CANNOT be undone in most cases. Continue?
How about a progressbar or something to see that is any progress there with the update.
Also okay is an estimation time or something or a rolling Bar or something with Filename next to it with echo -n
That would be pretty cool. Are you in particular thinking about a progress bar when creating a backup?
It looks like Borg backup already has an existing
--progress
flag toborg create
, so it might just be a question of passing that through from borgmatic. The way I could imagine that working is to add an optional--progress
to the borgmatic command-line that basically triggers the built-in Borg progress bar.Based on some discussion on #108, it sounds like
borg create --progress
doesn't actually include a progress bar as I originally assumed! So a pass-through flag wouldn't be sufficient here.In any case, it would be helpful if you could describe what you'd like a progress bar for (creating backups, etc). Thanks.
Okay, having played with
borg create --progress
a bit.. It's not a progress bar, but it does provide updating per-file rolling progress.. Here's an example:And those numbers update until the file backup is complete. This is just a built-in Borg feature. Here are the docs on it:
Let me know if that works for your needs or not.
Hey, thanks for your reply.
i overthinked it and that will be fine. To build a real Progress bar in the natural way a bar works you need to count all backed files before backup. That might be unefficient for the Tool itself.
So parse the param through will be the beste way.
Cool. In that case, I'll close this ticket as a duplicate in favor of #108. (Even though this ticket was technically filed first!) Thanks for filing the enhancement, and please continue to follow progress (heh) on #108.