Fix Smart Remove behavior to really "keep one snapshot per week for n weeks"

[emtiu]

Smart Remove doesn't actually "keep one snapshot per week for the last n weeks", as the setting indicates. Instead, it only works for n–1 weeks.

The deeper reason is that at one point, the Smart Remove code considers a "week" to span 8 days:

https://github.com/bit-team/backintime/blob/22f468c32732be6c821686e0c504b4dfb920487a/common/snapshots.py#L1689-L1697

This leads to the loss of the oldest snapshot in the last of the weeks to be considered. For details, see the discussion in #1094.

Git blame shows that this code has been unchanged since the "keep one snapshot per week for the last n weeks" function was first introduced in 2010 (version 1.0.6). It has probably had this bug since the beginning.

While here, improve debug logging of some Smart Remove functions to print SIDs .withoutTag, because they represent date boundaries only (and the randomly assigned tags contain no information related to any real snapshots). Most of the Smart Remove code already does this.

Fixes #1094.

[emtiu]

Okay, I see the failing unittest. I need to wrap my head around that :)

[buhtz]

Very cool. Also won't block this because of missing unit tests. I can take the refactoring and improving of the unit tests in a later step.

Okay, I see the failing unittest. I need to wrap my head around that :)

Must not be because of the Python version. To be sure please edit the .travis.yml file and uncomment the exclude: section to enable all Python versions.

[emtiu]

I will also need to consider the impact of this change to existing archives with many snapshots.

At first glance, no additional snapshots should be deleted as long as the duration considered by smartRemoveKeepFirst is shortened instead of lengthened. But I should do some tests to make sure.

[buhtz]

FYI: There is a new related issue #1874 . It is about smart remove with in leap years having a snapshot at 29th february.

[buhtz]

Hello, I just want to inform. I tried to investigate and understand the related parts of that code base. I created some unit tests to support my investigation. My intention was also to provide you with some unit test to support your PR: But I am not finished yet and I still lack of understanding. The behavior is not predictable for me.

Can be found in draft PR #1944

[buhtz]

It might be that the reported issue #1094 and your PR do focus on something on something else than I do report now.

I was able to reproduce a problem. Based on that I tend to say that your PR won't fix that problem.

Steps to reproduce:

• Create 4 snapshots on Saturdays: 2nd, 9th, 16th and 23th November 2024
• Keep one snapshots per week for the last 3 weeks
• Run auto/smart remove on Thusday date 26th November 2024

Expected: Keep the following snapshots: 9th, 16th and 23th November 2024

Real/problematic behavior: Only 16th and 23th is kept. The 9th is lost and not kept.

I added your fix but the problematic behavior did not change.

[buhtz]

Short: This PR is ready merge by Michael.

Long: I try to summarize to make this PR able to merge.

• The "issue" #1094 lacks of details and it is unclear what the problem is. So I tread it as "invalid".
• Michael's PR here really fix a minor bug. I would like to keep it as it is and merge it.

There is much more to discuss and decide in context of auto/smart remove. I will open a new meta issue for this.

About the reproducible example I described myself:

• Create 4 snapshots on Saturdays: 2nd, 9th, 16th and 23th November 2024
• Keep one snapshots per week for the last 3 weeks
• Run auto/smart remove on Tuesday date 26th November 2024

What happens: Only 16th and 23th is kept. The 9th is lost and not kept.

Looking into the code that behavior seems to be intended by the original author. The algorithm starts in the current running (not yet complete) week, not the previous week. In my example there is no backup in the current week, so nothing to keep, but one iteration done. The next two iterations result in two backups to keep. That it. 3 iterations but only 2 backups to keep because in the first iteration (the current week) there was no backup available.

Of course that behavior should be discussed. But not in this PR. Because all the other smart remove rules are affected. The entire system must be thoroughly researched, documented, and then rethought. If necessary, the behavior or wording in the GUI must be adjusted accordingly.

[buhtz]

Closing this based on the comment above.