#1
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#2
|
||||
|
||||
@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 |
#3
|
||||
|
||||
You mean links?
__________________
JD-Dev & Server-Admin |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#5
|
||||
|
||||
@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 |
#6
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Quote:
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. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Cheers, M |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
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 |
#9
|
||||
|
||||
It seems to be working quiet good all the years as the amount of negative feedback is nearly non existing?!
__________________
JD-Dev & Server-Admin |
#10
|
||||
|
||||
That's correct.
__________________
JD-Dev & Server-Admin |
#11
|
||||
|
||||
Please share your thoughts and ideas!
__________________
JD-Dev & Server-Admin |
#12
|
||||
|
||||
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 |
#13
|
||||
|
||||
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 |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
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. Quote:
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 |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Hi,
Again. Here's the log: 13.08.21 17.54.38 <--> 13.08.21 20.01.35 jdlog://7046825302851/ Thanks in advance, M |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
I believe I reported it as soon I ran into this issue, because it's extremely annoying. Cheers, M |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
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 |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Is this thread dead?
|
#21
|
||||
|
||||
Please wait until Jiaz finds time to answer.
-psp-
__________________
JD Supporter, Plugin Dev. & Community Manager
Erste Schritte & Tutorials || JDownloader 2 Setup Download |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
OK, thanks for the reply!
Cheers, M |
#23
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
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:
Quote:
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:
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 |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#27
|
||||
|
||||
@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 |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Hi Jiaz,
Sure, I'll make a screenshot next time it happens. Cheers, M |
#29
|
||||
|
||||
@Maelcum: Thanks for your understanding and help on this one
__________________
JD-Dev & Server-Admin |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#31
|
||||
|
||||
@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 |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
Hi Jiaz,
I rarely use The Prop panel, so I'm pretty sure it wasn't active when these incidents happened. Cheers, M |
#33
|
||||
|
||||
@Maelcum: Thanks, so the issue must be caused by something else then
__________________
JD-Dev & Server-Admin |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|