JDownloader Community - Appwork GmbH
 

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 06.06.2021, 19:48
Maelcum Maelcum is offline
JD VIP
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 302
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, 16:32
Jiaz's Avatar
Jiaz Jiaz is offline
JD Manager
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Germany
Posts: 72,640
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, 16:33
Jiaz's Avatar
Jiaz Jiaz is offline
JD Manager
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Germany
Posts: 72,640
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, 17:54
Maelcum Maelcum is offline
JD VIP
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 302
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, 18:29
Jiaz's Avatar
Jiaz Jiaz is offline
JD Manager
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Germany
Posts: 72,640
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, 18:29
Jiaz's Avatar
Jiaz Jiaz is offline
JD Manager
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Germany
Posts: 72,640
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 18:35.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 07.06.2021, 19:36
Maelcum Maelcum is offline
JD VIP
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 302
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, 19:47
Maelcum Maelcum is offline
JD VIP
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 302
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, 16:50
Jiaz's Avatar
Jiaz Jiaz is offline
JD Manager
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Germany
Posts: 72,640
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, 16:51
Jiaz's Avatar
Jiaz Jiaz is offline
JD Manager
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Germany
Posts: 72,640
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, 16:54
Jiaz's Avatar
Jiaz Jiaz is offline
JD Manager
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Germany
Posts: 72,640
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, 16:57
Jiaz's Avatar
Jiaz Jiaz is offline
JD Manager
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Germany
Posts: 72,640
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, 16:58
Jiaz's Avatar
Jiaz Jiaz is offline
JD Manager
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Germany
Posts: 72,640
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, 06:54
Maelcum Maelcum is offline
JD VIP
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 302
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, 07:33
Maelcum Maelcum is offline
JD VIP
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 302
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, 17:53
Maelcum Maelcum is offline
JD VIP
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 302
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, 05:03
Maelcum Maelcum is offline
JD VIP
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 302
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, 19:13
Maelcum Maelcum is offline
JD VIP
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 302
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, 19:23
Maelcum Maelcum is offline
JD VIP
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 302
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, 02:22
Maelcum Maelcum is offline
JD VIP
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 302
Default

Is this thread dead?
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 08:10.
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 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.