Archived Boards and Threads... > SMF Feedback and Discussion
SMF ADMIN PANEL BACKUP IS CRAP! CAN WE HAVE A PATCH RELEASE TO REMOVE IT PLEASE?
Kindred:
well, obviously, I disagree... but I'll leave it to the active team folks to decide how they specifically want to handle it.
Krash.:
If a feature has limited functionality, but that functionality is considered to be of sufficient value to put up with the cases where it doesn't work, I can understand keeping it, but only if the feature displays appropriate error messages when it fails. The very bad thing about the admin backup is that it always appears successful, making users believe they have a good backup when they actually do not.
N. N.:
--- Quote from: MrPhil on April 27, 2012, 12:24:17 PM ---I feel that SM has an obligation towards its community to make available patches to fix bugs which seriously compromise the system's functioning, even if, strictly speaking, they're not security related. Needless to say, 2.0 should get the full treatment, and not wait for some future 2.1.
--- End quote ---
This is how it is. For as long as they're in active development, older versions may receive backported fixes for major/critical issues, that could affect critical functionality or compromise the system's functioning. We have done that in the past, for SMF 1.0.x even, and of course SMF 1.1.x, as well as 2.0.x. It does apply even to 1.0.x, on some issues. And of course, during ALL the time until 1.0.x reaches EOL. Whether an issue is critically needed or not, is the question, not that we do that. We might also not do it the same way, too.
It has been under question whether this is indeed the case of the backup functionality. It doesn't compromise one's system, though. There are cases of hitting resource limits and such, and there is no warning, error, message, something to tell the user that it may go wrong too. That's wrong, in the sense that when it happens, it gives a false sense of security.
Please do share your feedback on Ema's tool presented here:
--- Quote from: emanuele on April 26, 2012, 04:37:16 PM ---
--- Quote from: MrPhil on April 26, 2012, 01:04:23 PM ---
* The backup can end in the middle due to timeouts, and the poor user is none the wiser.
--- End quote ---
What I have right now is a code that is as good as phpMyAdmin is (as far as I can test on my own computer).
It still rely on apache_reset_timeout or set_time_limit, I'll check later other ways to do the backup.
Just added something like this to the backup page (wording needs a lot of love... :P):
http://img337.imageshack.us/img337/8521/screen61r.png
--- Quote from: MrPhil on April 26, 2012, 01:04:23 PM ---
* SMF backs up in chunks of 250 records per INSERT. If there are 250*N records, you end up with a superfluous INSERT with no data.
--- End quote ---
That shouldn't happen with the code I wrote.
--- Quote from: MrPhil on April 26, 2012, 01:04:23 PM ---
* Field names should be within ` because sometimes there are reserved keywords used as field names.
--- End quote ---
That is already like that in 2.0 as far as I can see:
--- Code: --- $data = 'INSERT INTO `' . $tableName . '`' . $crlf . "\t" . '(`' . implode('`, `', $fields) . '`)' . $crlf . 'VALUES ';
--- End code ---
--- Code: --- $schema_create .= ' `' . $row['Field'] . '` ' . $row['Type'] . ($row['Null'] != 'YES' ? ' NOT NULL' : '');
--- End code ---
--- End quote ---
Thank you very much for looking into it, Ema. Perhaps having it available for testing would be even better, when possible, for people to take it for a spin.
As for wording, can you propose an alternative, better wording?
N. N.:
--- Quote from: Krash. on April 25, 2012, 10:25:58 PM ---
--- Quote from: Antechinus on April 25, 2012, 08:51:16 PM ---Ok, I'm interested. Why was the backup unusable? Was it truncated, or was there some other problem?
--- End quote ---
Here is the original thread -
http://www.simplemachines.org/community/index.php?topic=474878.msg3320443#top
--- End quote ---
Let me get this straight.
1/ the user asks how to restore their backup.
2/ we are, instead, telling them the backup is "corrupted". (?)
3/ this discussion is opened, to report that another backup was corrupted. (?)
I must be missing something here?
Krash.:
I think the point was to caution the OP that the backup may not be useable. Not knowing the experience level of the user, importing a bad backup could further damage the forum db. These support topics are problematic because it's often difficult to determine exactly what the user is dealing with, and the unreliability of admin backup must be considered.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version