dot in filename issue with new backup policy

[plgarcia]

As I told you the problem is to have a way to clearly identify what archive relates to what project, knowing that the format of the date can be changed at any moment by the user.

how to make the difference of the archives of the 2 following projects:
project.FCStd
project-1.FCStd
project-20200301.FCStd
when saving project the archives of the 3 projects may be confused. With the . only the 2 last extensions were to be considered to be safe.

But OK I will do it despite the fact I am not convinced at all it is a problem.
Let me think of an algorithm that quite safely identifies the archives related to the project, and I will implement it.

By the way let me know the name of this anti-malware so I never use it!

Regards
Pascal Garcia

[plgarcia]

What if we include the information of the archive between parenthesis as the browsers do with (n) when downloading, to avoid deleting a previous download?
The parenthesis would then be forbidden in the format the user can define.
Regards

[chrisb]

Guys, please. I opened this thread because the anti-malware system (or whatever they are running behind the scenes) at work make problem. I removed the second dot and it was fine.

As pointed out by plgarcia it is pretty natural to have more than one dot. The very normal way if a malware checker detects false positives is to teach the malware checker, and not to change the falsely detected software - what an idea! If your malware checker doesn't allow this and the guys providing it are not fast in including some publicly well know software, then it may be time to change the malware checker.

[plgarcia]

Again if you do so the archives will not be properly identified between 2 project with names beginning the same as
project.FCStd
Project-1.FCStd

The parenthesis seems to be a solution, let me know

[uwestoehr]

As pointed out by plgarcia it is pretty natural to have more than one dot. The very normal way if a malware checker detects false positives is to teach the malware checker, and not to change the falsely detected software - what an idea!

I fully agree with you. However, if we want people starting to use FC at their work (which is my personal aim for personal reasons ), we must take care in this respect. For example I have no clue what even the name of the anti-malware is, nor how it is working and how to teach it. So at my local SSD there is no problem, but as soon as I push a XXX.YYY.FCBak file to a network drive, I get strange security warnings, just because of its name.

Yes, I can turn-off the backup feature, but I am a developer and know what is going on and why. New users who want to give FC a try don't know. So maybe I am now annoyingly over-eager

I was a developer of the FOSS program www.lyx.org for more than 10 years and there we faced the same problems. If you want to be accepted as program in companies you must take care of annoying over-eager anti-malware programs. Once you are accepted, like e.g. LibreOffice, Inkscape etc. the IT guys won't discuss with you and set up the whitelist quickly on demand or already by default.

[uwestoehr]

The parenthesis seems to be a solution, let me know

Sounds good. And FC does this at other places, for example when creating a mesh, the filename gets "(Meshed)" added.

[plgarcia]

Could we all agree here that using parenthesis will be acceptable, and that would stop this polemic topic?
To be clear I would add the date between parenthesis at the end of the base name, before the last extension.

If agreed I will implement this and push a PR.

It will not be done today as anyway I have some work to do even if I am confined at home (hope it is the right English expression in this context) as most of you I believed!

Nevertheless I believe that such a anti-malware cannot be used by developers as they are installing software from many sources, often free, sometimes in non conventional folders, eventually developing their own software, and a full list of applications cannot be maintained, and therefore a problem will appear at some point.

Regards
Pascal Garcia

[uwestoehr]

Could we all agree here that using parenthesis will be acceptable, and that would stop this polemic topic?

Fine with me.
And take your time. FC 0.19 will not be released tomorrow. Just state in this thread:
https://forum.freecadweb.org/viewtopic. ... 8&start=50
that this change is pending.

Nevertheless I believe that such a anti-malware cannot be used by developers as they are installing software from many sources

These anti-malware tools are a plague.

It is not about developers - it is about engineers who would like to try out or use FreeCAD. For example since the FreeCAD Windows installer allows to install FreeCAD without admin permissions, some of my colleagues gave FC a try - because they can now since nobody has admin privileges.

[chrisb]

Could we all agree here that using parenthesis will be acceptable, and that would stop this polemic topic?

I hate using special characters in filenames. I limit filenames to [-a-zA-Z0-9_.] and that's it. No blanks, no umlauts, no other fancy stuff. I can bet that some shell or ftp or other scripts have problems with parantheses.

I'm tired of the argument that companies will use FreeCAD if this or that will happen and that they possibly will flood the FreeCAD developers with money and whatever. I very very much doubt that there are that many companies using such a malware checker and which will use FreeCAD if the backup files are named differently.
Make a poll, get profound data, and if you find more than, lets say 5 companies, we can discuss it again. And then we can discuss what is the benefit for FreeCAD.
FreeCAD is no cheap prostitute who has to do everything for money.

[plgarcia]

Chris If I understand well you are against this change right.
I also feel this anti-malware we do not even know the name is the problem.
For the moment I do not move!