Thread: [User feedback required] New package position in Linkgrabber
View Single Post
Old 17.09.2021, 19:28
Jiaz's Avatar
Jiaz Jiaz is offline
JD Manager
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Germany
Posts: 72,936

I think this is an unlikely situation. If it's part of a split archive, the common sense would suggest copy all of them at once. But even if it happens one by one, why on Earth would anybody disable some parts before getting all of them?
It's not about *why ..would anybody disable...*.
There are many examples. Like someone wants to auto disable links via Packagizer rules and
enable them later. Or disable mirror links and prefer hoster XY.

That being said, a simple option to control whether the user wants to merge the new links with existing but disabled links would suffice.
Of course I can spend time working on such an option, but it will only take very short time before you will realize the negative side effects on this. Like no longer proper working on packaging in case links are disabled by plugins/packagizer rules/scripts. But as optional feature, sure, why not? But I think the cause is about the recent changes done in sorting, see below

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by filtered package here..
correct, I mean the quick filters on the right side. for example you disable hoster xy because you don't need it right now.
a package is filtered when no visible link with current set of quickfilters.
a package is hidden when no matching link for current search condition

I don't think I've seen this behaviour before, and I'm using jDownloader for quite some time now.
There has been no changes at all about this logic. I checked all changes in 2021 and none that affect the packaging.
JDownloader tries to find best matching packages for the link. It does this via meta information given by plugins and also custmized Packagizer rules can alter the outcome/what package the link is placed in.

The only major change between 2018 and 2021 was fixed support for package/links sorting in list.
Maybe it's not caused by the discussed packaging but due to some sort of sorting issue.
This would also match your comment about
"The new links was NOT put into disabled/hidden packages, the new links put into a completely new package, there was no matching disabled/hidden package. I'm sure because the packages names contain date information."

So let's try to check if the sorting is the cause.
I don't need logs because they don't contain (yet) any information about sorting/packaging. But I can add debug infos for this.
Do you use rightclick context menu and sort package content?
do you click on column header to sort the view?
do you rightclick on column header for sorting?
JD-Dev & Server-Admin
Reply With Quote