Can CLI find duplicates; do copied items retain metadata

This discussion was created from comments split from: Can I share a login with only SOME team members?.

Comments

  • joliver1
    joliver1
    Community Member

    I'm wondering if there's a way to have the 1Password command line interface tool scan across all vaults and find "duplicates" and then be able to either print the duplicate entry identifier or even sync the password between each. Of course this kind of duplicate detection/sync process would need to be run by a user with permission across all vaults.

    When an item is copied from one vault to another, does the copy retain any kind of metadata that points back to the original? Or does the copy of some kind of identifier that would indicate it was a duplicate of another item?

  • I'm wondering if there's a way to have the 1Password command line interface tool scan across all vaults and find "duplicates" and then be able to either print the duplicate entry identifier or even sync the password between each.

    Unfortunately not, for two reasons. There's no way for us to really know which item was derived from which, so unless you're willing to define "duplicates" as something relatively loose like "items with the same URLs and usernames" it's not likely to work.

    Secondly, currently op has the ability to create new items, but isn't able to update existing items. It's something we hope to add in a future release.

    When an item is copied from one vault to another, does the copy retain any kind of metadata that points back to the original?

    It does not. They are unique copies as far as 1Password is concerned.

    The only time that there's a reference that'd be useful is in the case of "Send a Copy...", which sends a perfect copy (including identifier), but "Send a Copy..." only sends to another user's personal/private vault and so it wouldn't show up in two vaults that someone would have access to.

    Sorry about that. Probably not the answer you were looking for.

    Rick

This discussion has been closed.