Implement backup command (serverless index backups / restore jobs)

[austin-denoble]

Problem

Backups and restore jobs for serverless indexes have been supported in the go-pinecone SDK for a while, but they haven't been brought to the CLI.

Solution

• Implement backup command: create, list, describe, delete.
• Implement backup restore command: list, describe - backup restore supports restoring indexes from backups as well. - Add unit tests for backup and restore commands.
• Update --json flags to support shorthand -j across all commands.

Type of Change

• Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
• New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
• Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to not work as expected)
• This change requires a documentation update
• Infrastructure change (CI configs, etc)
• Non-code change (docs, etc)
• None of the above: (explain here)

Test Plan

CI - unit & integration tests

There were new unit tests added for the backup commands. I've also tested the flow of index -> backup -> restore job -> index manually.

pc backup create --index-name my-index --name my-index-backup --description "backup of my-index"

# list all backups for a project
pc backup list

# list backups for a specific index
pc backup list --index-name my-index

# describe backup and restore an index from that backup
pc backup describe --id backup-id-123-456
pc backup restore --id backup-id-123-456 --name my-index-restored

# list restore jobs
pc backup restore list

---

• To see the specific tasks where the Asana app for GitHub is being used, see below:
  • https://app.asana.com/0/0/1210811533821769

[claude]

Claude finished @austin-denoble's task —— View job

---

Code Review: Backup Command Implementation

I'll provide a comprehensive review of this PR implementing backup commands for serverless index backups and restore jobs.

Review Tasks

• Examine codebase structure and understand existing patterns
• Review backup command implementations (create, list, describe, delete)
• Review backup restore command implementations (list, describe)
• Assess test coverage and quality
• Check for security concerns (input validation, API handling)
• Evaluate performance considerations
• Check code quality and best practices
• Provide final recommendations

---

Overall Assessment

This is a well-structured and comprehensive implementation that adds backup functionality to the Pinecone CLI. The code follows established patterns in the codebase and maintains consistency with existing commands.

✅ Strengths

1. Code Structure & Architecture

• Excellent separation of concerns: Clear distinction between command handlers, service interfaces, and business logic
• Consistent with existing patterns: Follows the same structure as other CLI commands (apiKey, index, etc.)
• Proper interface design: BackupService and RestoreJobService interfaces enable testability
• Clean command hierarchy: Logical grouping with backup and backup restore commands

2. Implementation Quality

• Robust input validation: All commands properly validate required parameters with both flag validation and runtime checks
• Consistent error handling: Uses standardized error messaging and exit patterns
• Good user experience: Clear success/failure messages with styled output
• JSON support: Proper -j shorthand implementation across all commands

3. Testing Coverage

• Comprehensive unit tests: Both backup_test.go and restore_test.go cover all major code paths
• Excellent mocking strategy: Mock services properly capture inputs and return controlled outputs
• Good test organization: Tests follow clear naming conventions and test both success and error scenarios

4. Security & Input Handling

• Proper input sanitization: Uses strings.TrimSpace() for ID validation
• No exposed secrets: No hardcoded credentials or sensitive data
• Safe API parameter handling: Proper pointer management for optional parameters

🔍 Areas for Improvement

1. Minor Code Quality Issues

Problem: Inconsistent JSON flag handling in delete command

// delete.go - Missing JSON flag
type deleteBackupCmdOptions struct {
    backupId string
    // Missing json bool field
}

Recommendation: Add JSON output support to delete operations for consistency.

Problem: Example inconsistency in help text (backup/cmd.go:28-30)

pc pinecone backup create --index-name my-index --name daily-backup
pc pinecone backup list --index-name my-index
pc pinecone backup create-index --id backup-123 --name restored-index

Recommendation: Examples should use pc backup not pc pinecone backup (unless there's a namespace reason).

2. Error Handling Enhancement

Current: Basic error messages

return pcio.Errorf("--id is required")

Recommendation: Consider adding more context for common error scenarios (e.g., backup not found, insufficient permissions).

3. Performance Considerations

Potential issue: No client timeout configuration visible in backup operations
Recommendation: Ensure backup operations (which can be long-running) have appropriate timeout handling, especially for large indexes.

📋 Detailed Technical Review

Backup Create Command (create.go:71-107)

• ✅ Proper parameter validation and optional field handling
• ✅ Clean pointer management for optional description/name
• ✅ Good user feedback with backup ID emphasis

Backup List Command (list.go:57-90)

• ✅ Excellent pagination support
• ✅ Flexible filtering by index name
• ✅ Proper optional parameter handling

Backup Restore Commands (restore/cmd.go, restore/list.go)

• ✅ Well-structured restore job creation
• ✅ Good validation for deletion protection enum
• ✅ Helpful user guidance with progress monitoring commands

Presenters (presenters/backup.go)

• ✅ Comprehensive table formatting
• ✅ Good status colorization (green/yellow/red)
• ✅ Proper handling of optional fields with DisplayOrNone()
• ✅ Clean time formatting

Testing (backup_test.go, restore/restore_test.go)

• ✅ Thorough test coverage (90%+ estimated)
• ✅ Good test isolation using mocks
• ✅ Tests validate both input parsing and API call parameters

🔒 Security Assessment

✅ No security concerns identified:

• Input validation prevents injection attacks
• No credential exposure
• Proper API parameter handling
• Uses established SDK patterns

🚀 Performance Assessment

✅ Generally good performance patterns:

• Efficient table-based output formatting
• Proper pagination support for large result sets
• No obvious memory leaks or performance bottlenecks

Note: Long-running backup operations should be monitored for timeout handling.

---

🎯 Final Recommendations

Priority 1 (Optional):

1. Add JSON output to delete command for consistency
2. Fix help text examples to use correct command paths
3. Consider enhanced error messages for common failure scenarios

Priority 2 (Future Enhancement):

1. Add progress indicators for long-running backup operations
2. Consider adding confirmation prompts for delete operations
3. Add validation for backup name constraints (if any exist in the API)

✅ Approval Summary

This PR is ready for merge with the minor improvements noted above being optional. The implementation is solid, well-tested, and follows established patterns. The backup functionality appears complete and production-ready.

Key accomplishments:

• Complete CRUD operations for backups
• Full restore job functionality
• Comprehensive test coverage
• Consistent CLI patterns
• Good user experience

Great work on this feature implementation! 🎉

---

[claude]

Claude finished @austin-denoble's task —— View job

---

Code Review: Backup Command Implementation

I'll provide a comprehensive review of this PR implementing backup commands for serverless index backups and restore jobs.

Review Tasks

• Examine codebase structure and understand existing patterns
• Review backup command implementations (create, list, describe, delete)
• Review backup restore command implementations (list, describe)
• Assess test coverage and quality
• Check for security concerns (input validation, API handling)
• Evaluate performance considerations
• Check code quality and best practices
• Provide final recommendations

---

Overall Assessment

This is a well-structured and comprehensive implementation that adds backup functionality to the Pinecone CLI. The code follows established patterns in the codebase and maintains consistency with existing commands.

✅ Strengths

1. Code Structure & Architecture

• Excellent separation of concerns: Clear distinction between command handlers, service interfaces, and business logic
• Consistent with existing patterns: Follows the same structure as other CLI commands (apiKey, index, etc.)
• Proper interface design: BackupService and RestoreJobService interfaces enable testability
• Clean command hierarchy: Logical grouping with backup and backup restore commands

2. Implementation Quality

• Robust input validation: All commands properly validate required parameters with both flag validation and runtime checks
• Consistent error handling: Uses standardized error messaging and exit patterns
• Good user experience: Clear success/failure messages with styled output
• JSON support: Proper -j shorthand implementation across all commands

3. Testing Coverage

• Comprehensive unit tests: Both backup_test.go and restore_test.go cover all major code paths
• Excellent mocking strategy: Mock services properly capture inputs and return controlled outputs
• Good test organization: Tests follow clear naming conventions and test both success and error scenarios

4. Security & Input Handling

• Proper input sanitization: Uses strings.TrimSpace() for ID validation
• No exposed secrets: No hardcoded credentials or sensitive data
• Safe API parameter handling: Proper pointer management for optional parameters

🔍 Areas for Improvement

1. Minor Code Quality Issues

Problem: Inconsistent JSON flag handling in delete command

// delete.go - Missing JSON flag
type deleteBackupCmdOptions struct {
    backupId string
    // Missing json bool field
}

Recommendation: Add JSON output support to delete operations for consistency.

Problem: Example inconsistency in help text (backup/cmd.go:28-30)

pc pinecone backup create --index-name my-index --name daily-backup
pc pinecone backup list --index-name my-index
pc pinecone backup create-index --id backup-123 --name restored-index

Recommendation: Examples should use pc backup not pc pinecone backup (unless there's a namespace reason).

2. Error Handling Enhancement

Current: Basic error messages

return pcio.Errorf("--id is required")

Recommendation: Consider adding more context for common error scenarios (e.g., backup not found, insufficient permissions).

3. Performance Considerations

Potential issue: No client timeout configuration visible in backup operations
Recommendation: Ensure backup operations (which can be long-running) have appropriate timeout handling, especially for large indexes.

📋 Detailed Technical Review

Backup Create Command (create.go:71-107)

• ✅ Proper parameter validation and optional field handling
• ✅ Clean pointer management for optional description/name
• ✅ Good user feedback with backup ID emphasis

Backup List Command (list.go:57-90)

• ✅ Excellent pagination support
• ✅ Flexible filtering by index name
• ✅ Proper optional parameter handling

Backup Restore Commands (restore/cmd.go, restore/list.go)

• ✅ Well-structured restore job creation
• ✅ Good validation for deletion protection enum
• ✅ Helpful user guidance with progress monitoring commands

Presenters (presenters/backup.go)

• ✅ Comprehensive table formatting
• ✅ Good status colorization (green/yellow/red)
• ✅ Proper handling of optional fields with DisplayOrNone()
• ✅ Clean time formatting

Testing (backup_test.go, restore/restore_test.go)

• ✅ Thorough test coverage (90%+ estimated)
• ✅ Good test isolation using mocks
• ✅ Tests validate both input parsing and API call parameters

🔒 Security Assessment

✅ No security concerns identified:

• Input validation prevents injection attacks
• No credential exposure
• Proper API parameter handling
• Uses established SDK patterns

🚀 Performance Assessment

✅ Generally good performance patterns:

• Efficient table-based output formatting
• Proper pagination support for large result sets
• No obvious memory leaks or performance bottlenecks

Note: Long-running backup operations should be monitored for timeout handling.

---

🎯 Final Recommendations

Priority 1 (Optional):

1. Add JSON output to delete command for consistency
2. Fix help text examples to use correct command paths
3. Consider enhanced error messages for common failure scenarios

Priority 2 (Future Enhancement):

1. Add progress indicators for long-running backup operations
2. Consider adding confirmation prompts for delete operations
3. Add validation for backup name constraints (if any exist in the API)

✅ Approval Summary

This PR is ready for merge with the minor improvements noted above being optional. The implementation is solid, well-tested, and follows established patterns. The backup functionality appears complete and production-ready.

Key accomplishments:

• Complete CRUD operations for backups
• Full restore job functionality
• Comprehensive test coverage
• Consistent CLI patterns
• Good user experience

Great work on this feature implementation! 🎉

---

[claude]

Claude finished @austin-denoble's task —— View job

---

Code Review: Backup Command Implementation

I'll provide a comprehensive review of this PR implementing backup commands for serverless index backups and restore jobs.

Review Tasks

• Examine codebase structure and understand existing patterns
• Review backup command implementations (create, list, describe, delete)
• Review backup restore command implementations (list, describe)
• Assess test coverage and quality
• Check for security concerns (input validation, API handling)
• Evaluate performance considerations
• Check code quality and best practices
• Provide final recommendations

---

Overall Assessment

This is a well-structured and comprehensive implementation that adds backup functionality to the Pinecone CLI. The code follows established patterns in the codebase and maintains consistency with existing commands.

✅ Strengths

1. Code Structure & Architecture

• Excellent separation of concerns: Clear distinction between command handlers, service interfaces, and business logic
• Consistent with existing patterns: Follows the same structure as other CLI commands (apiKey, index, etc.)
• Proper interface design: BackupService and RestoreJobService interfaces enable testability
• Clean command hierarchy: Logical grouping with backup and backup restore commands

2. Implementation Quality

• Robust input validation: All commands properly validate required parameters with both flag validation and runtime checks
• Consistent error handling: Uses standardized error messaging and exit patterns
• Good user experience: Clear success/failure messages with styled output
• JSON support: Proper -j shorthand implementation across all commands

3. Testing Coverage

• Comprehensive unit tests: Both backup_test.go and restore_test.go cover all major code paths
• Excellent mocking strategy: Mock services properly capture inputs and return controlled outputs
• Good test organization: Tests follow clear naming conventions and test both success and error scenarios

4. Security & Input Handling

• Proper input sanitization: Uses strings.TrimSpace() for ID validation
• No exposed secrets: No hardcoded credentials or sensitive data
• Safe API parameter handling: Proper pointer management for optional parameters

🔍 Areas for Improvement

1. Minor Code Quality Issues

Problem: Inconsistent JSON flag handling in delete command

// delete.go - Missing JSON flag
type deleteBackupCmdOptions struct {
    backupId string
    // Missing json bool field
}

Recommendation: Add JSON output support to delete operations for consistency.

Problem: Example inconsistency in help text (backup/cmd.go:28-30)

pc backup create --index-name my-index --name daily-backup
pc backup list --index-name my-index
pc backup create-index --id backup-123 --name restored-index

Recommendation: Examples should use pc backup not pc pinecone backup (unless there's a namespace reason).

2. Error Handling Enhancement

Current: Basic error messages

return pcio.Errorf("--id is required")

Recommendation: Consider adding more context for common error scenarios (e.g., backup not found, insufficient permissions).

3. Performance Considerations

Potential issue: No client timeout configuration visible in backup operations
Recommendation: Ensure backup operations (which can be long-running) have appropriate timeout handling, especially for large indexes.

📋 Detailed Technical Review

Backup Create Command (create.go:71-107)

• ✅ Proper parameter validation and optional field handling
• ✅ Clean pointer management for optional description/name
• ✅ Good user feedback with backup ID emphasis

Backup List Command (list.go:57-90)

• ✅ Excellent pagination support
• ✅ Flexible filtering by index name
• ✅ Proper optional parameter handling

Backup Restore Commands (restore/cmd.go, restore/list.go)

• ✅ Well-structured restore job creation
• ✅ Good validation for deletion protection enum
• ✅ Helpful user guidance with progress monitoring commands

Presenters (presenters/backup.go)

• ✅ Comprehensive table formatting
• ✅ Good status colorization (green/yellow/red)
• ✅ Proper handling of optional fields with DisplayOrNone()
• ✅ Clean time formatting

Testing (backup_test.go, restore/restore_test.go)

• ✅ Thorough test coverage (90%+ estimated)
• ✅ Good test isolation using mocks
• ✅ Tests validate both input parsing and API call parameters

🔒 Security Assessment

✅ No security concerns identified:

• Input validation prevents injection attacks
• No credential exposure
• Proper API parameter handling
• Uses established SDK patterns

🚀 Performance Assessment

✅ Generally good performance patterns:

• Efficient table-based output formatting
• Proper pagination support for large result sets
• No obvious memory leaks or performance bottlenecks

Note: Long-running backup operations should be monitored for timeout handling.

---

🎯 Final Recommendations

Priority 1 (Optional):

1. Add JSON output to delete command for consistency
2. Fix help text examples to use correct command paths
3. Consider enhanced error messages for common failure scenarios

Priority 2 (Future Enhancement):

1. Add progress indicators for long-running backup operations
2. Consider adding confirmation prompts for delete operations
3. Add validation for backup name constraints (if any exist in the API)

✅ Approval Summary

This PR is ready for merge with the minor improvements noted above being optional. The implementation is solid, well-tested, and follows established patterns. The backup functionality appears complete and production-ready.

Key accomplishments:

• Complete CRUD operations for backups
• Full restore job functionality
• Comprehensive test coverage
• Consistent CLI patterns
• Good user experience

Great work on this feature implementation! 🎉

---