starred/adguardhome-sync

Fork 0

mirror of https://github.com/bakito/adguardhome-sync.git synced 2026-03-02 22:57:06 -05:00

Additional feature to handle independent 'protection' state syncing #156

New issue

Open

opened 2026-02-20 09:38:26 -05:00 by deekerman · 4 comments

deekerman commented

2026-02-20 09:38:26 -05:00

Owner

Originally created by @networkoctopus on GitHub (Oct 24, 2025).

At the moment Adguard home's current 'protection' state syncs across replicas when "all" features are enabled.
Perhaps, if one prefers to have blocking disabled on one host (possibly a remote site), or they want to disable for a preferred amount of time - right now that protection state will be reverted back to the source's protection state at the next sync cycle.

Describe the solution you'd like*

It would be great if there was a feature 'protection_status' - and when this feature is set to "disabled" - it would allow independent blocking control on each replica.

Adguard already has the native mechanism to disable blocking for "x" amount of time - which will return the block back to enabled.

So risk of implementing this new feature and a user 'forgetting' to re-enable blocking is minimised.

Describe alternatives you've considered

Right now, its only possible to achieve this when both features "general settings", and dns "serverConfig" are set to false.

However, this then stops syncing for those features.

Also, one can't achieve independent blocking setting by disabling the "filters" feature, because this breaks dns rewrites aswell. (re-writes are treated same as filters).

Anything else?

Thanks for a great application :)

Originally created by @networkoctopus on GitHub (Oct 24, 2025). ### Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe. At the moment Adguard home's current 'protection' state syncs across replicas when "all" features are enabled. Perhaps, if one prefers to have blocking disabled on one host (possibly a remote site), or they want to disable for a preferred amount of time - right now that protection state will be reverted back to the source's protection state at the next sync cycle. ### Describe the solution you'd like* It would be great if there was a feature 'protection_status' - and when this feature is set to "disabled" - it would allow independent blocking control on each replica. Adguard already has the native mechanism to disable blocking for "x" amount of time - which will return the block back to enabled. So risk of implementing this new feature and a user 'forgetting' to re-enable blocking is minimised. ### Describe alternatives you've considered Right now, its only possible to achieve this when both features "general settings", and dns "serverConfig" are set to false. However, this then stops syncing for those features. Also, one can't achieve independent blocking setting by disabling the "filters" feature, because this breaks dns rewrites aswell. (re-writes are treated same as filters). ### Anything else? Thanks for a great application :)

deekerman added the

enhancement

label

2026-02-20 09:38:26 -05:00

deekerman commented

2026-02-20 09:38:27 -05:00

Author

Owner

@bakito commented on GitHub (Oct 24, 2025):

@networkoctopus Thank you for this request.

Do I understand this correctly, the request is that features could be configured separately for each replica?
This is currently not planned, I would have to think about if or how this could be implemented.

@bakito commented on GitHub (Oct 24, 2025): @networkoctopus Thank you for this request. Do I understand this correctly, the request is that features could be configured separately for each replica? This is currently not planned, I would have to think about if or how this could be implemented.

deekerman commented

2026-02-20 09:38:27 -05:00

Author

Owner

@networkoctopus commented on GitHub (Oct 24, 2025):

@bakito thanks for replying.

Maybe I over-explained 👌🏻 It's not that each replica needs features configured separately..

it's more about breaking the protection status out into its own sync feature at the bottom of the yaml. At the moment it syncs by default - and one can't control that. Hope this makes more sense.

@networkoctopus commented on GitHub (Oct 24, 2025): @bakito thanks for replying. Maybe I over-explained 👌🏻 It's not that each replica needs features configured separately.. it's more about breaking the protection status out into its own sync feature at the bottom of the yaml. At the moment it syncs by default - and one can't control that. Hope this makes more sense.

deekerman commented

2026-02-20 09:38:27 -05:00

Author

Owner

@github-actions[bot] commented on GitHub (Dec 23, 2025):

This issue has been inactive for 60 days. If the issue is still relevant please comment to re-activate the issue. If no action is taken within 7 days, the issue will be marked closed.

@github-actions[bot] commented on GitHub (Dec 23, 2025): This issue has been inactive for 60 days. If the issue is still relevant please comment to re-activate the issue. If no action is taken within 7 days, the issue will be marked closed.

deekerman commented

2026-02-20 09:38:28 -05:00

Author

Owner

@networkoctopus commented on GitHub (Dec 27, 2025):

No rush, just responding to keep the ticket alive. I'd still be interested in this feature if its possible.

@networkoctopus commented on GitHub (Dec 27, 2025): No rush, just responding to keep the ticket alive. I'd still be interested in this feature if its possible.