Am 8/14/19 um 3:23 PM schrieb Stefan Reiter:
>>
>> But then the WebGUI would need to be adapted to cope with such a case,
>> as currently adding excludes to a pool based backup job results in a
>> rather strange and wrong visualization, e.g., "All except 1074" here,
>> but all is not selected and e
On 8/14/19 12:03 PM, Thomas Lamprecht wrote:
Am 8/6/19 um 2:41 PM schrieb Stefan Reiter:
I don't see a reason to blanket-forbid excluding VMs in pool backups, so I felt
leaving the API unchanged was the better option in this case. The GUI is the
broken part, the API is working fine, albeit for
Am 8/6/19 um 2:41 PM schrieb Stefan Reiter:
> I don't see a reason to blanket-forbid excluding VMs in pool backups, so I
> felt leaving the API unchanged was the better option in this case. The GUI is
> the broken part, the API is working fine, albeit for a use-case it wasn't
> intentionally des
I don't see a reason to blanket-forbid excluding VMs in pool backups, so
I felt leaving the API unchanged was the better option in this case. The
GUI is the broken part, the API is working fine, albeit for a use-case
it wasn't intentionally designed for.
That said, I'm fine with either change.
Thanks for spotting this one.
IMHO this would be better fixed in the API, unless we really want to allow pool
backups which exclude vms:
diff --git a/PVE/API2/Backup.pm b/PVE/API2/Backup.pm
index bf9a3330..6c2e16c3 100644
--- a/PVE/API2/Backup.pm
+++ b/PVE/API2/Backup.pm
@@ -476,6 +476,7 @@ __PACK
Previously, if you selected a job in "exclude" mode (in DC GUI) with some VMIDs
selected and then switched that backup job to "pool", the backup job would
retain the "exclude" section and thus not back up all VMs.
The backend technically supports this, but the GUI would then misrepresent this,
sho
