isync-devel

mbsync ignores --dry-run

[inwit <in...@si...>]

Hi,

I'm observing a disturbing behaviour of mbsync, both in v1.5.0 and in v1.5.1. When I add the --dry-run flag, mbsync ignores it and does alter my mailboxes, both far and near. I've asked a colleague to try and they've confirmed this. I think this might be an important bug, with potentially harsh consequences on users.

Regards,

Re: mbsync ignores --dry-run

[inwit <in...@si...>]

Update: it appears that the command line --pull flag is also ignored. :(

Re: mbsync ignores --dry-run

[Oswald B. <osw...@gm...>]

On Wed, Mar 26, 2025 at 11:08:26AM +0100, inwit wrote:
>I'm observing a disturbing behaviour of mbsync, both in v1.5.0 and in
>v1.5.1. When I add the --dry-run flag, mbsync ignores it and does alter
>my mailboxes, both far and near.
>
such a bug was fixed in 1.5.1.
did you confirm with `mbsync -v` that you are actually using that?
does adding -D (or -Dd more specifically) make it actually dry?
if not, please mail me a log (with -D) of a minimal reproducer (with
config file, and sync only one small box).

On Wed, Mar 26, 2025 at 11:40:40AM +0100, inwit wrote:
>Update: it appears that the command line --pull flag is also ignored. :(
>
please post your config file and the actual command line you used.

Re: mbsync ignores --dry-run

[inwit <in...@si...>]

On 26/03/2025, 11:49, Oswald Buddenhagen via isync-devel wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 26, 2025 at 11:08:26AM +0100, inwit wrote:
>>I'm observing a disturbing behaviour of mbsync, both in v1.5.0 and in
>>v1.5.1. When I add the --dry-run flag, mbsync ignores it and does alter
>>my mailboxes, both far and near.
>>
> such a bug was fixed in 1.5.1.
Is it possible that in this last version it doesn't explicitly say what "would have" done in the final summary?

Re: mbsync ignores --dry-run

[Oswald B. <osw...@gm...>]

On Wed, Mar 26, 2025 at 12:23:55PM +0100, inwit wrote:
>On 26/03/2025, 11:49, Oswald Buddenhagen via isync-devel wrote:
>> such a bug was fixed in 1.5.1.
>Is it possible that in this last version it doesn't explicitly say what "would have" done in the final summary?
>
assuming i understand your question correctly ...
yes, due to the re-consolidation of the output format, there is now no
distinction between "would" and "did" in the output, as it's just
numbers.

Re: mbsync ignores --dry-run

[inwit <in...@si...>]

On 26/03/2025, 12:30, Oswald Buddenhagen via isync-devel wrote:
> yes, due to the re-consolidation of the output format, there is now no
> distinction between "would" and "did" in the output, as it's just
> numbers.
Understood. They're just numbers but there's no distinction between
"would" and "did" in those numbers, correct? I mean, the only difference
is the time it takes to finish the job, right?

Re: mbsync ignores --dry-run

[Oswald B. <osw...@gm...>]

On Wed, Mar 26, 2025 at 12:35:34PM +0100, inwit wrote:
>
>
>On 26/03/2025, 12:30, Oswald Buddenhagen via isync-devel wrote:
>> yes, due to the re-consolidation of the output format, there is now no
>> distinction between "would" and "did" in the output, as it's just
>> numbers.
>Understood. They're just numbers but there's no distinction between
>"would" and "did" in those numbers, correct? I mean, the only difference
>is the time it takes to finish the job, right?
>
yes. and the actual effect, obviously.

i suppose i could have it print "dry run; no modifications will be
made." at the start.

Re: mbsync ignores --dry-run

[inwit <in...@si...>]

On 26/03/2025, 12:45, Oswald Buddenhagen via isync-devel wrote:
> i suppose i could have it print "dry run; no modifications will be
> made." at the start.
That'd be clearer, yes.