JDownloader Community - Appwork GmbH
 

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 06.06.2021, 20:48
Maelcum Maelcum is offline
JD VIP
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 337
Default New package position in Linkgrabber

Hi,

Sometimes the linkgrabber doesn't append or merge new packages, but places it somewhere near the top (no sorting).

It happened a few times, I have no idea what's causing it, but it's definitely happening and very annoying, especially when someone has a lot of links in the linkgrabber view.

I have a bunch of disabled packages older than the new ones, yet new packages inserted into those disabled.

I had a bunch of invisible (host disabled in the view) links from a specific hoster, and removing those links fixed the problem (at least for the current case), but something's definitely fishy there.

Cheers,
M
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 07.06.2021, 17:32
Jiaz's Avatar
Jiaz Jiaz is offline
JD Manager
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Germany
Posts: 79,289
Default

@Maelcum:
JDownloader tries to find a good/matching packages where to place new links. This can also be controlled by Packagizer rules/Plugins/user settings.
The state of the package(enabled/disabled) doesn't matter, no influence at all.
Also new packages are either added at top or bottom position(Settings->Advanced Settings->LinkgrabberSettings.linkgrabberaddattop).
No sorting applied at all.
__________________
JD-Dev & Server-Admin
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 07.06.2021, 17:33
Jiaz's Avatar
Jiaz Jiaz is offline
JD Manager
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Germany
Posts: 79,289
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Maelcum View Post
I have a bunch of disabled packages older than the new ones, yet new packages inserted into those disabled.
You mean links?
__________________
JD-Dev & Server-Admin
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 07.06.2021, 18:54
Maelcum Maelcum is offline
JD VIP
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 337
Default

Disabled packages with links, like:

disabled_package_01
disabled_package_02
disabled_package_03
new_package_04
disabled_package_04
disabled_package_05
new_package_01
new_package_02
new_package_03


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, it looks it just randomly put into the middle of old, disabled packages.
It just doesn't make sense to insert brand-new packages into the middle of nowhere, so to speak.

If, for some weird reason, the linkgrabber/packager finds that a pretty old package is a good candidate for putting the links into it, what would happen if the target disabled/hidden anyway?

Thanks in advance,
M
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 07.06.2021, 19:29
Jiaz's Avatar
Jiaz Jiaz is offline
JD Manager
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Germany
Posts: 79,289
Default

@Maelcum: is your view sorted/filtered? is any column/background of different color?
new packages are either append at the bottom or put at top, not between. so sounds like you are viewing a sorted view?
__________________
JD-Dev & Server-Admin
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 07.06.2021, 19:29
Jiaz's Avatar
Jiaz Jiaz is offline
JD Manager
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Germany
Posts: 79,289
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Maelcum View Post
If, for some weird reason, the linkgrabber/packager finds that a pretty old package is a good candidate for putting the links into it, what would happen if the target disabled/hidden anyway?
You can enable the added and modified date columns, whenever you move/add/remove a link within a package, it's modified date will change

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jiaz View Post
@Maelcum:
The state of the package(enabled/disabled) doesn't matter, no influence at all.
The auto packaging doesn't care about enable/disabled or visibility.
Would not make any sense else it would break everything else.
You could no longer use filter/search during crawling. No longer disable packages via Packagizer rules....and much more.
__________________
JD-Dev & Server-Admin

Last edited by Jiaz; 07.06.2021 at 19:35.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 07.06.2021, 20:36
Maelcum Maelcum is offline
JD VIP
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 337
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jiaz View Post
@Maelcum: is your view sorted/filtered? is any column/background of different color?
new packages are either append at the bottom or put at top, not between. so sounds like you are viewing a sorted view?
No, like I said, there wasn't any sorting.

Cheers,
M
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 07.06.2021, 20:47
Maelcum Maelcum is offline
JD VIP
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 337
Default

Quote:
The auto packaging doesn't care about enable/disabled or visibility.
Would not make any sense else it would break everything else.
That means packaging doesn't respect the way user organize their queue, right?

Putting a new link into a disabled package would enable the package, but the old links would be still disabled, ending up mixing old and new things.
To be honest, I'd rather have a new package than mixing things up.

So, I'm not sure if this is the ideal solution from a user perspective.

Cheers,
M
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 08.06.2021, 17:50
Jiaz's Avatar
Jiaz Jiaz is offline
JD Manager
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Germany
Posts: 79,289
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Maelcum View Post
That means packaging doesn't respect the way user organize their queue, right?
It seems to be working quiet good all the years as the amount of negative feedback is nearly non existing?!
__________________
JD-Dev & Server-Admin
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 08.06.2021, 17:51
Jiaz's Avatar
Jiaz Jiaz is offline
JD Manager
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Germany
Posts: 79,289
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Maelcum View Post
Putting a new link into a disabled package would enable the package, but the old links would be still disabled, ending up mixing old and new things.
That's correct.
__________________
JD-Dev & Server-Admin
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 08.06.2021, 17:54
Jiaz's Avatar
Jiaz Jiaz is offline
JD Manager
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Germany
Posts: 79,289
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Maelcum View Post
So, I'm not sure if this is the ideal solution from a user perspective.
Please share your thoughts and ideas!
__________________
JD-Dev & Server-Admin
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 08.06.2021, 17:57
Jiaz's Avatar
Jiaz Jiaz is offline
JD Manager
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Germany
Posts: 79,289
Default

Just some thoughts about this.

It doesn't make sense to treat disabled packages differently, why?
Because imagine a package with single link in it and you disable it. The link is part of an archive. According to your logic you would prefer the 2nd part of the archive to go to new package instead of being group together with the other parts?
Also ppl might just want to disable links/packages because they don't want to download right now but at later time and yet move them to download list.
Plugins/Packagizer Rules/Scripts can disable links and I think ppl don't expect this to break packaging of the links?!

It doesn't make sense to treat filtered/hidden packages differently, why?
Because you would have to disable all filters/search when you add new links. Imagine you are filtering archive file types, then
each new archive link would go into its own/seperate package just because you're filtering them right now.
I don't think this is expected behaviour?!
__________________
JD-Dev & Server-Admin
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 08.06.2021, 17:58
Jiaz's Avatar
Jiaz Jiaz is offline
JD Manager
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Germany
Posts: 79,289
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Maelcum View Post
No, like I said, there wasn't any sorting.

Cheers,
M
Have you disabled quickfilters at the right side of linkgrabber? That would explain why packages are added somewhere else than top/bottom. Have you checked if the package is indeed *new* and not just showing up again because of a link in package that is not filtered? You can check by the added date column
__________________
JD-Dev & Server-Admin
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 19.06.2021, 07:54
Maelcum Maelcum is offline
JD VIP
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 337
Default

Hi,
It's happening again.
Here's the log: 18.06.21 21.50.27 <--> 18.06.21 21.53.27 jdlog://7663825302851/

Cheers,
M
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 19.06.2021, 08:33
Maelcum Maelcum is offline
JD VIP
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 337
Default

Quote:
Because imagine a package with single link in it and you disable it. The link is part of an archive.
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?


Quote:
Also ppl might just want to disable links/packages because they don't want to download right now but at later time and yet move them to download list.
This is a valid case, I do it frequently myself for safe keeping packages. Which means, they're complete, and I don't expect adding more links to them.
That being said, a simple option to control whether the user wants to merge the new links with existing but disabled links would suffice.

Quote:
It doesn't make sense to treat filtered/hidden packages differently, why?
I'm not entirely sure what you mean by filtered package here, and I guess by hidden packages you mean packages containing hidden hosters (or file type, etc.).
I don't know how other users use the hide hoster feature, for example - I just use it to avoid dealing with unpleasant hosters (or avoid downloading unnecessary files found by linkgrabber, when grabbing youtube links, for instance) - hide them and remove them in batch once in a while.

Cheers,
M
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 07.08.2021, 18:53
Maelcum Maelcum is offline
JD VIP
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 337
Default

Hi,

It's happening again.
Here's the log: 06.08.21 19.48.45 <--> 07.08.21 08.52.17 jdlog://4016825302851/

Thanks in advance,
M
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 14.08.2021, 06:03
Maelcum Maelcum is offline
JD VIP
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 337
Default

Hi,

Again.
Here's the log: 13.08.21 17.54.38 <--> 13.08.21 20.01.35 jdlog://7046825302851/

Thanks in advance,
M
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 21.08.2021, 20:13
Maelcum Maelcum is offline
JD VIP
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 337
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jiaz View Post
It seems to be working quiet good all the years as the amount of negative feedback is nearly non existing?!
I don't think I've seen this behaviour before, and I'm using jDownloader for quite some time now.
I believe I reported it as soon I ran into this issue, because it's extremely annoying.

Cheers,
M
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 21.08.2021, 20:23
Maelcum Maelcum is offline
JD VIP
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 337
Default

Quote:
Have you disabled quickfilters at the right side of linkgrabber? That would explain why packages are added somewhere else than top/bottom. Have you checked if the package is indeed *new* and not just showing up again because of a link in package that is not filtered? You can check by the added date column
I do have some hosters disabled.
Now I checked (enabled all hosters), and there's an old package with a similar name, but nothing merged into the new package, so I don't think the mere similarity justifies this kind of behaviour.

Without any sorting applied to the linkgrabber, new packages should be appended to the list by default. I think we can agree that it's the most obvious choice.
If someone wants to put a new package into the middle of the list, sure, they should be able to do it, so let's add some weird rules and options for them.

But the default behaviours always should be driven by common sense, in my opinion.

Cheers,
M
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 13.09.2021, 03:22
Maelcum Maelcum is offline
JD VIP
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 337
Default

Is this thread dead?
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 13.09.2021, 15:13
pspzockerscene's Avatar
pspzockerscene pspzockerscene is offline
Community Manager
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Deutschland
Posts: 70,918
Default

Please wait until Jiaz finds time to answer.

-psp-
__________________
JD Supporter, Plugin Dev. & Community Manager

Erste Schritte & Tutorials || JDownloader 2 Setup Download
Spoiler:

A users' JD crashes and the first thing to ask is:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jiaz View Post
Do you have Nero installed?
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 17.09.2021, 18:46
Maelcum Maelcum is offline
JD VIP
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 337
Default

OK, thanks for the reply!

Cheers,
M
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 17.09.2021, 19:28
Jiaz's Avatar
Jiaz Jiaz is offline
JD Manager
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Germany
Posts: 79,289
Default

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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


Quote:
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


Quote:
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.


BUT:
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
  #24  
Old 03.10.2021, 03:27
Maelcum Maelcum is offline
JD VIP
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 337
Default

Hi Jiaz,

Thanks for the detailed answer!

The usual setup

I might have some disabled packages in the LinkGrabber view.

I'm always doing link grabbing in a non-sorted view, using the natural order (new packages appended at the end of the queue).

If the packager finds a good candidate package, merges into it instead of appending. That's expected.

I have disabled hosts on the right-hand side host list.

I don't have any other packaging rules.

So, without any other packaging rules, I think there should be only two options:
- either append to the end of the LinkGrabber queue
- or merge with an existing package

The cases I've outlined when started this thread, do not fall into these categories: the new packages sometimes inserted before the first active package for no apparent reason.
Neither disabled nor hidden entries merged into it, not even similar entries near them.

It simply doesn't make sense, IMHO.

Thanks in advance,
M
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 03.10.2021, 20:51
Maelcum Maelcum is offline
JD VIP
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 337
Default

And it happened again.

After dozens of packages appended to the end of linkgrabber queue, suddenly, jDownloader started to prepend new packages at the top, without noticeable reasons.
No sorting, nothing changed. I've checked hidden packages, nothing even remotely similar package found.

After restarting jDownloader, the issue's gone.

Cheers,
M
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 20.03.2022, 05:02
Maelcum Maelcum is offline
JD VIP
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 337
Default

Hi,

It's still happening.
Now it's worse, because it shortly returns after restarting jDownloader.

Can we do something about this?

Thanks in advance,
M
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 21.03.2022, 11:19
Jiaz's Avatar
Jiaz Jiaz is offline
JD Manager
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Germany
Posts: 79,289
Default

@Maelcum: can you please create a screenshot when this happens. Enable the *Added Date* and "Modified Date" columns in table and screenshot should show the package, the columns and the column headers. I need both "Added, Modified" Date columns to see if the package that is at wrong position is indeed *freshly* created or comes from attic/basement.
I need a way to reproduce the issue or at least hints where to start looking for
__________________
JD-Dev & Server-Admin
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 22.03.2022, 04:09
Maelcum Maelcum is offline
JD VIP
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 337
Default

Hi Jiaz,

Sure, I'll make a screenshot next time it happens.

Cheers,
M
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 22.03.2022, 11:08
Jiaz's Avatar
Jiaz Jiaz is offline
JD Manager
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Germany
Posts: 79,289
Default

@Maelcum: Thanks for your understanding and help on this one
__________________
JD-Dev & Server-Admin
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 22.03.2022, 16:57
Statter Statter is offline
JD Legend
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 541
Default

As an FYI this was happening to me also for a time but, I think after the latest updates earlier this week or last everything is fine again with added links going to the end of link grabber queue.

Things started working again when the Properties issue was fixed and JD finally updated.

Yes I also still have the *Added Date* and "Finished Date" columns still active also. for my own peace of mind.
__________________
OS X !0.6.8 Mac Pro Intel (Workhorse)
OS X 10.13.6 MBP Intel 17" (Secondary)
OS X MBP Intel 15" Dual boot 10.6.8 and 10.13.6 (as needed)

Last edited by Statter; 22.03.2022 at 16:59.
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 22.03.2022, 17:18
Jiaz's Avatar
Jiaz Jiaz is offline
JD Manager
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Germany
Posts: 79,289
Default

@Statter: Thanks for the feedback, brings me to an idea
@Maelcum: do you have the properties panel at bottom open/closed when this happens?
__________________
JD-Dev & Server-Admin
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 23.03.2022, 01:56
Maelcum Maelcum is offline
JD VIP
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 337
Default

Hi Jiaz,

I rarely use The Prop panel, so I'm pretty sure it wasn't active when these incidents happened.

Cheers,
M
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 23.03.2022, 12:26
Jiaz's Avatar
Jiaz Jiaz is offline
JD Manager
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Germany
Posts: 79,289
Default

@Maelcum: Thanks, so the issue must be caused by something else then
__________________
JD-Dev & Server-Admin
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT +2. The time now is 14:17.
Provided By AppWork GmbH | Privacy | Imprint
Parts of the Design are used from Kirsch designed by Andrew & Austin
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.10 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.