Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Feature request - Backup before update flag #13

Open
slimninja opened this issue Jul 24, 2023 · 2 comments
Open

Feature request - Backup before update flag #13

slimninja opened this issue Jul 24, 2023 · 2 comments

Comments

@slimninja
Copy link

Hi. First of all, great work on everything. I've been using Bookstack since about 2017 with very few issues :)

I currently run a script monthly via cron that:

  1. Check git repo to see if I'm behind (and if so)
  2. Backs up db/files
  3. Updates BookStack
  4. Sends me a notification of update/status

With system-cli, life is a little easier, and I can run something along the lines of this every month:

./BookStack/bookstack-system-cli backup backups/
./BookStack/bookstack-system-cli update

However, this means that regardless of whether there's a bookstack update available or not, my instance is backed up.

Ideally I would be able to run something like below, where If I provide a flag, e.g. --backup, bookstack would backup before it updates to the backup path provided (else default backup path)

./BookStack/bookstack-system-cli update --backup backups/

That way, this can be a defined as a standalone cron task

Additionally, I noticed that even if you are on the latest version of Bookstack and run update, you receive a "Your BookStack instance at [path/BookStack] has been updated!". It would be great if this returned a "Your BookStack instance is already on the latest version" instead.

@slimninja slimninja changed the title Backup before update flag Feature request - Backup before update flag Jul 24, 2023
@ssddanbrown
Copy link
Member

Thanks for the suggestion @slimninja.
Personally, I'm not too fond of this due to the added complexity of supporting the merging two commands, each with their own options. I really want to try to keep things simple in this CLI, with specific commands for specific jobs.
I can understand the scenario/need though.

Maybe we can come at this from a different angle though, and look to implement a check-update command (or similar), that returns a status code depending on if there's an update or not.
That way you'd be able to do something like:

./bookstack-system-cli check-update && ./bookstack-system-cli backup backups/ && ./bookstack-system-cli update

@slimninja
Copy link
Author

Thanks for the suggestion @slimninja.
Personally, I'm not too fond of this due to the added complexity of supporting the merging two commands, each with their own options. I really want to try to keep things simple in this CLI, with specific commands for specific jobs.
I can understand the scenario/need though.

Maybe we can come at this from a different angle though, and look to implement a check-update command (or similar), that returns a status code depending on if there's an update or not.
That way you'd be able to do something like:

./bookstack-system-cli check-update && ./bookstack-system-cli backup backups/ && ./bookstack-system-cli update

That's a great idea, and solves my initial problem as well. Reduces overlap as well

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants