User-defined exclusion patterns have no effect

[unfa]

Describe the bug
I have specified exclusion patterns to avoid backing up unnecessary data, but borg seems to completely ignore them. I have consulted borg manual to make sure the format is correct.

Am I doing something wrong or is this a bug?

My exclusion patterns:

/data/Temp/**
/data/Disposable/**
/home/unfa/mountpoint/**
**/.cache/**
**/Olive/mediacache/**
**/hiberfil.sys
**/swapfile.sys
**/pagefile.sys
/mnt/windows/Users/unfa/[...]
**/SteamLibrary/**

To Reproduce

1. Define an exclusion pattern
2. Run backup
3. Watch as the excluded files are still backed up

Environment (please complete the following information):

• OS: Arch Linux
• Vorta version: 0.8.7
• Borg version: 1.2.2
• Installed from: AUR vorta-git PKGBUILD

Vorta and Borg versions can be found in Main Window > Misc Tab.

[real-yfprojects]

I think you have to replace /** in your patterns by /**/*.

[m3nu]

You're passing sh-style patterns, when the default is fn-style. So you need to either prefix with sh: or change to fn-style.

Borg docs have more (also linked in Vorta): https://borgbackup.readthedocs.io/en/stable/usage/help.html#borg-help-patterns.

[unfa]

So should I prefix every line in my exclusions with sh: ?
Like sh:/data/Temp/** ?

[real-yfprojects]

So should I prefix every line in my exclusions with sh: ?
Like sh:/data/Temp/** ?

Yes, though I am pretty sure my point applies too.

[unfa]

So should I prefix every line in my exclusions with sh: ?
Like sh:/data/Temp/** ?

Yes, though I am pretty sure my point applies too.

Thanks, I will test this.

I wonder if Vorta could help users verify if these things are properly formatted, do some basic syntax checks or stuff?
I tried to follow the examples but ended up with something that wasn't valid.

[m3nu]

I wonder if Vorta could help users verify if these things are properly formatted, do some basic syntax checks or stuff? I tried to follow the examples but ended up with something that wasn't valid.

Already planned for a while. See #907

[stale]

This issue has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity. It will be closed if no further activity occurs. Thank you for your contributions.