Fixes the toBackupList function by removing the loop

[gitlw]

This PR fixes the issue #3831 described in the uncompleted PR #3832 , which is blocking the 1.1 release.

---

This change is 

[pullrequest]

✅ A review job has been created and sent to the PullRequest network.

---

@gitlw you can click here to see the review status or cancel the code review job.

[manishrjain]

Test it thoroughly.

Reviewed 1 of 1 files at r1.
Reviewable status: complete! all files reviewed, all discussions resolved

[pullrequest]

I have a question inline regarding the new check being added to short-circuit and how it impacts code in one of the cases below.

---

Reviewed with ❤️ by PullRequest

[pullrequest]

It seems like this case may always be hit now that you have a check at the top for:

if item.Version() < pr.Request.SinceTs || item.IsDeletedOrExpired() {
    return list, nil
}

Wondering if this case can be simplified from this or if that initial if statement needs to be adjusted for this case?

[gitlw]

I tested backup and restore of the 21million data set under 2 configs

• 1 alpha and 1 zero
• 3 alphas and 1 zero with replication 1 (each alpha in an independent group)

and for each config the result is validated using the system/21million/run_test.go

Reviewable status: all files reviewed, 1 unresolved discussion (waiting on @gitlw)

[gitlw]

Reviewable status: 0 of 1 files reviewed, 1 unresolved discussion (waiting on @manishrjain and @pullrequest[bot])

---

ee/backup/backup.go, line 234 at r1 (raw file):

Previously, pullrequest[bot] wrote…

It seems like this case may always be hit now that you have a check at the top for:

if item.Version() < pr.Request.SinceTs || item.IsDeletedOrExpired() {
    return list, nil
}

Wondering if this case can be simplified from this or if that initial if statement needs to be adjusted for this case?

Great catch, I've removed the if condition check.