Subject: [bug#71639] [PATCHv2 0/5] Improve on restic-backup-service

From: paul <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 7 Jul 2024 22:40:55 +0200

Hi Richard,

On 6/27/24 05:56, Richard Sent wrote:
> I'll take a look at it and see what the code looks like. It might be a
> bit of effort to get that working cleanly while avoiding code dupe. For
> instance, setting RESTIC_PASSWORD(_COMMAND) in both init and backup
> program actions.
Yes, 100% agree. What I would do is (and probably there is a better way):

- rename restic-backup-job-program to restic-action-job-program or 
something similar. the procedure would be the same but it would take two 
additional arguments: an action-name argument or similar that would 
replace all instances of "backup" and I think this new procedure should 
not access the files field of the job record but it instead it would 
take an action-arguments argument which would replace #$@files with 
#$@action-arguments in the execlp call. This way, I hope, it could be 
general enough to support additional actions besides init in the future, 
such as purge or restore.

- create a new restic-backup-job-program and a restic-init-job-program 
or similar procedures that would call the new generic 
restic-action-job-program

- inside the restic-guix procedure I'd rename the programs list to 
backup-programs and I would create a similar list for the init action 
with #f placeholders for jobs that do not require initializing, and I 
would check the conditional inside the backup procedure something like:

(define (get-program name programs)
   [...])

(define (init args)
  [...])

(define (backup args)
   (define name (third args))
   (define backup-program (get-program name backup-programs))
   (define init-program (get-program name init-programs))
   (when init-program
     (init args))
   (execlp backup-program backup-program))

this requires the init action not to exec the script resulting from the 
gexp but I can't think of a reason why it could be problematic right now 
so I guess it is ok.

Please take all of the above as a proposal there are for sure things to 
make better.

> Thanks for the feedback!

Thank you very much for your work,

giacomo