Filters Include/Exclude, Could it be implemented to a "tick" folder instead?

[carlos]

Hello! It’s been over a year since I tried duplicacy.
When I tested the old gui it was difficult to add folders and exclude if I had multiple folders to do so.
I’v tried the new webgui and it persist.

There is no way to implement a tick folder like Arq/Crashplan have?
It would make it so easy to people who doesn’t have knowledge with links and paths etc, and I would come back to Duplicacy in a blink. The tech works better than Arq (which im using now), making it possible to me to have my entire backups 30% smaller (a big number when backing up around 1TB/year)

[gchen]

I’ll try. It wasn’t implemented because such a mode may not be compatible with the powerful pattern rules that we currently support. Maybe I’ll add this as a basic mode which will generate include/exclude patterns from those ticks and un-ticks (and disable custom patterns). The current mode will be the advanced mode where you can enter the patterns manually.

[carlos]

Hey!! This would be very nice! And I’m pretty sure it would make it easier to noobs/less skilled people understand. In the end more people would be joining Duplicacy. It’s win/win.

How can I monitor the implementation ETA?

[Christoph]

How can I monitor the implementation ETA?

Yea, some kind of dashboard where we could monitor progress on various features would be great

But see this.

[carlos]

[alasdair]

Pretty much a dupe of my ask here

UI: Provide visual indication of include/exclude patterns on file tree

When setting up include/exclude patterns for backups, i’d love to see how the current rules apply to the files and folders visible in the panel. [image] As you can see, there is no visual indication that the selected patterns apply to the folders that are in the tree. What i’d like to see, is after clicking exclude or include, the item in the tree gets a + or - icon next to it, similarly adding regex rules (for example for a file type), that this gets represented. With the proposed way, we wo…

Glad it’s getting looked at though!. I’d really appreciate any sort of integration with the result of custom patterns, even if it was much slower as an opt-in feature.

[tangofan]

I’ve experimented a bit with using filters in backup in the Web UI and to my great surprise my first include filter didn’t include any files in the backup.

The filter was:

+Kontoauszuege/MeineBank/*

which I created by selecting the directory in the tree and clicking “include”.

Only after carefully reading the filter user guide a few times, I realized that my filter needs to look something like this:

+Kontoauszuege/MeineBank/*
+Kontoauszuege/

However the only way to add the second line is to click on “add” and enter it manually. If there are multiple second level directories, this can get quite tedious.

It would be good to have some improvements here.

Perhaps the most startling aspect is that I need the second line anyway. Why not scan the whole directory tree and match each file against the filter? Of course that would make the scan a bit slower, but is that really that big of a deal?
Or have something more sophisticated that would generate a filter like the second line above on the fly before each backup starts (and - if necessary - also generate exclude lines for all other subdirectories that are not included).

Another improvement would be the ability to edit all filters at once, instead of just being able to add a single line with each edit. That could also speed up some tedious “add” and “save” actions. I’m using a docker container on a NAS, so editing the filter file with an OS editor is not a convenient option.

[herbert]

Any update on this ?
I used Duplicati before and they allowed to include and exclude multiple folders / files with this concept. What they actually did was for ever tick (exclude or include) they wrote the filter.
Something like what it already happening but with the benefit of including the parent folder but excluding some child folders

I liked the concept and if I needed a more complex use case; I could still use regex or patterns instead.