It would be a help to prevent errors in the important task of syncing,
if FFS could make some consistency checks in the filter dialog at some point :
File Size
Allow only non-0 intervals (between Minimum and Maximum)
Include/ Exclude
Same entry in include and in exclude
Double entries
... (there may be some other constellations...)
[Feature Request] Filter: Consistency check
- Posts: 36
- Joined: 30 Jun 2025
-
- Posts: 2946
- Joined: 22 Aug 2012
Does a car warn you if you hit the gas and brake paddle at the same time?
Any of the cases you describe will simply show up as unexpected Compare results and proposed sync actions, triggering the need to review your sync configuration.
Exactly the same Include and Exclude entries could likely be detected.
But partial overlaps between Include and Exclude rules (e.g. when using wildcards, and/or when using both global and local Filter rules) can actually be quite useful.
Any of the cases you describe will simply show up as unexpected Compare results and proposed sync actions, triggering the need to review your sync configuration.
Exactly the same Include and Exclude entries could likely be detected.
But partial overlaps between Include and Exclude rules (e.g. when using wildcards, and/or when using both global and local Filter rules) can actually be quite useful.
- Posts: 36
- Joined: 30 Jun 2025
... show up as unexpected Compare results Plerry, 02 Jul 2025, 10:40
Please excuse, I wasn't aware that you have in mind which kind of Compare results should show up.
;)
Hey, we're talking about large numbers of different files in different directories.
How should I know that somewhere I made an error in the filter settings
that leads to not synchronizing important files?
An app should assist in not making errors and report them as much as possible.
Especially if it's about such important thing as backup/ synchronizing.
I guess you're doing with Admin roots all the time,
as you always know what you're doing?
Moreover I don't understand why you're talking about partial overlaps...
What has this to do with a consistency check?
-
- Posts: 2946
- Joined: 22 Aug 2012
> Please excuse, I wasn't aware that you have in mind which kind of Compare results should show up.
_I_ don't have in mind what Compare results or proposed sync actions should show up, you should have.
After all, you seem to intend to run a Mirror sync between your left and right location with certain In- and Exclusions. You should compare the proposed sync actions with the sync actions you expect to see, and resolve any discrepancies before committing to run an actual sync (and saving your sync configuration for future use).
That is first and foremost what the Compare results are for.
> I guess you're doing with Admin roots all the time,
> as you always know what you're doing?
Quite the opposite. Because (I believe ...) I mostly know what I am doing, I always login and execute tasks as a non-admin user, except when performing tasks that require admin rights (and only then).
Along the same line, I run my backup tasks under dedicated user credentials. Those dedicated backup users are only active while running backups, and are the only ones having write access to the respective backup network locations.
> I don't understand why you're talking about partial overlaps...
> What has this to do with a consistency check?
Having an identical entry, e.g. example.pdf, in both the Include and Exclude rules, obviously does not make sense. There is a full overlap of that rule and might be considered to be an inconsistency.
However, having e.g. *.pdf as an Include rule and *\example.pdf as an exclude rule creates a partial overlap (example.pdf is also part of the *.pdf Include rule) can make a lot of sense.
It will simply include all pdf-files, except for all example.pdf files anywhere in the left or right base location or any of its sub directories.
Should such partial overlap also be reported as an inconsistency?
_I_ don't have in mind what Compare results or proposed sync actions should show up, you should have.
After all, you seem to intend to run a Mirror sync between your left and right location with certain In- and Exclusions. You should compare the proposed sync actions with the sync actions you expect to see, and resolve any discrepancies before committing to run an actual sync (and saving your sync configuration for future use).
That is first and foremost what the Compare results are for.
> I guess you're doing with Admin roots all the time,
> as you always know what you're doing?
Quite the opposite. Because (I believe ...) I mostly know what I am doing, I always login and execute tasks as a non-admin user, except when performing tasks that require admin rights (and only then).
Along the same line, I run my backup tasks under dedicated user credentials. Those dedicated backup users are only active while running backups, and are the only ones having write access to the respective backup network locations.
> I don't understand why you're talking about partial overlaps...
> What has this to do with a consistency check?
Having an identical entry, e.g. example.pdf, in both the Include and Exclude rules, obviously does not make sense. There is a full overlap of that rule and might be considered to be an inconsistency.
However, having e.g. *.pdf as an Include rule and *\example.pdf as an exclude rule creates a partial overlap (example.pdf is also part of the *.pdf Include rule) can make a lot of sense.
It will simply include all pdf-files, except for all example.pdf files anywhere in the left or right base location or any of its sub directories.
Should such partial overlap also be reported as an inconsistency?
- Posts: 36
- Joined: 30 Jun 2025
People make mistakes.
For one of my programs long ago I did the fun to code a full constistency
check for source, dest and filters.
(However it was far a completely different problem) .
Although I was the author; was careful, and knew about the inconsitencies
that can happen... from time to time the program reminds me that I just
entered an inconsistency/ incoherence.
Sometimes I was sure I made a mistake with the logic of the inconsistency
check; but a closer look and some thinking always showed that the
inconsistency was there. It might be complex.
(And a challenge to code btw. :)
No.
If you built a sync project that is complex enough, it will happen (maybe
after some addings and modifications by the time), that you enter
an inconsistency/ incoherence.
Having a look at the results of the Compare results does not help
in complex or large enough projects.
E.g. you will have to know what's missing (due to the filter settings)??
Concering your example due to partial overlaps,
and your question:
No, such partial overlap should not reported as inconsistency.
It is none.
Inconsistencies are cases of errors. And your example is none.
My proposal is to enable the system to check for errors.
With regard to the entries.
(However not with regard to the accessable data at the disks,
as the setting may be built without having access to source
or dest).
For one of my programs long ago I did the fun to code a full constistency
check for source, dest and filters.
(However it was far a completely different problem) .
Although I was the author; was careful, and knew about the inconsitencies
that can happen... from time to time the program reminds me that I just
entered an inconsistency/ incoherence.
Sometimes I was sure I made a mistake with the logic of the inconsistency
check; but a closer look and some thinking always showed that the
inconsistency was there. It might be complex.
(And a challenge to code btw. :)
No.
If you built a sync project that is complex enough, it will happen (maybe
after some addings and modifications by the time), that you enter
an inconsistency/ incoherence.
Having a look at the results of the Compare results does not help
in complex or large enough projects.
E.g. you will have to know what's missing (due to the filter settings)??
Concering your example due to partial overlaps,
and your question:
No, such partial overlap should not reported as inconsistency.
It is none.
Inconsistencies are cases of errors. And your example is none.
My proposal is to enable the system to check for errors.
With regard to the entries.
(However not with regard to the accessable data at the disks,
as the setting may be built without having access to source
or dest).
-
- Posts: 4866
- Joined: 11 Jun 2019
After seeing a ton of your posts complaining and suggesting, is FFS the right software for you?
