6.60b8 b3906 Issues

[wiggins09]

Haven't tried everything yet but I had a couple of surprises in 6.60b8 b3906

1. My wishlist got eaten (I'd not expected that but maybe I should have?)
2. Block selecting headers/files & choosing 'download to folder named for subject' creates individual folders for each file.
Formerly it would group the selection in a single named folder - which was more useful.
3. When entering a search string for the download list it seems really slow making its' selection/hi-lite now

re #1 - anyway to recover that? Not the end of the world but I cannot recall everything I had put into it

[Quade]

#1, what did you upgrade from? The release notes mention there's no upgrade path for the download/wish/failed from 6.56 to 6.60. The old data still exists. You could run 6.56 and export the wish list as an NZB or something.

#2, not sure there's a right answer for that. For some file types you one folder, for some you want individual.

#3 It's sorting on the download list DB so, it's going to slow than the old way. The speed's a function of current diskIO and size of the download/wish/failed lists.

[wiggins09]

Thanks Quade. I should have added a bit more info I think.

1. It was from a 6.60 install (build 3319?) - OK so I can roll back ...

2. I get what you are saying but in this instance it is the manual selection of parts from a single post. (Shift+select / ctrl+click etc on the headers instead of single click / select or loading nzb)
e.g.

<post name>adssfg.01
<post name>adssfg.02
<post name>adssfg.03
<post name>adssfg.04
<post name>adssfg.nfo
<post name>adssfg.par2

Simultaneously selected as a block & 'download to folder named for subject' used.
I used to get one folder with all the above extracted into it, now I get a lot of separate folders, each with one element.

3. The reason I think it is slow is because previously with an average daily list of a dozen nzbs it takes a fraction of a second, with this build it's a lot longer. Today a list of 6 nzbs taking approx 2.5 seconds searching for a string of 'sample'. NBP & its' DB is on a SSD.

[Quade]

1. It was from a 6.60 install (build 3319?) - OK so I can roll back ...

You shouldn't have lost anything then. All the 6.60 versions are compatible with each other.

#2, I understand the issue it's just that if you're downloading individual files you probably want them all in the same folder but, if you mark a number of sets of files, you probably want each set in its own folder.

That's why I say there's no right answer. It's something I have on my list to revisit.

#3 It was essentially not working in all the prior 6.60s. It would only find the items that were currently loaded into memory. Now it actually finds them all but is slower. There are situations where it'll be slower than expected. Like trying find and simultaneously adding a bunch of files to the download list.

[wiggins09]

Thanks Quade, I will try & clarify, I know what you are referring to I think, but -
In the case of #2 I am manually selecting one set only, I would expect multiple sets to behave differently - when I have done this when learning NPB they all (multi-parts) went into a named folder in a jumble. Duh
Now each file gets a unique folder - one for each segment, 1 for the nfo, 1 for the par etc.
This is like RAR when you tell it to 'extract each file to a separate folder'. I have never seen NBP do this before.

#3 Well I just had a surprise on this, I just ran the find on a dozen nzbs, it found the string, I deleted the selected files (I saw a confirmation dialog & they were deleted from the download list.) I then connected & started leeching........
To my surprise all the items I had del'd were still downloaded

& I found a new problem.
My old Watch Topic entries have been reassigned under the Watch Lists presumably as intended.
The second 1 of these works but no matter what I do, the other (this is the 1st watch on the list) doesn't..
I've deleted it & re-entered everything.
I can test the search strings & they show as working & matches found.
But when I double click to open the watch in a tab & it finds nothing & it doesn't recall the settings of the drop-downs as previously. (My 2nd watch does recall this tho & it does do the search / filter op as it did before)

One other thing I find odd is the options for the 'look in groups' is the repeating of my defined groups - 4x each possible option in the drop-down, in the order they appear e.g. -
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4 etc.

Wondering if I need a clean install....I did back up my config before the upgrade so hopefully this isn't too big a deal.

[Quade]

You have all the symptoms of a data folder change. That you're not currently using the same data folder that you were. That would explain the missing wish list and the missing results from your old watch lists. Nothing has changed with how watch lists are stored so, if the data is missing it suggests you're not using the same data folder you were.

The changes to make watch lists work with search had no impact on existing watch lists. The option to use "Internet" is now honored. That's about it. Internally in bowels things changed but not in anything that's visible to you.

In the case of #2 I am manually selecting one set only, I would expect multiple sets to behave differently - when I have done this when learning NPB they all (multi-parts) went into a named folder in a jumble. Duh
Now each file gets a unique folder - one for each segment, 1 for the nfo, 1 for the par etc.
This is like RAR when you tell it to 'extract each file to a separate folder'. I have never seen NBP do this before.

Let me clarify what you're doing. You're not hitting the + and adding the individual files within a set are you? 'cause if you are. I'm going to suggest you actually select the parent item to "Download to folder named for subject". Then they'll all go to a single folder.

[wiggins09]

Nope I didn't change the data folder & it doesn't appeared to have changed during the update.

When there is a + & the set is pre-defined as a group I just select the pre-grouped 'top' post. This is one reason why I have been confused, suddenly what I have been doing isn't working the same.
From what you say I am guessing the install is corrupted somehow so I am going to remove it & start again. I will then be able to confirm the behavior

Thanks for the pointers.

[Quade]

Your faked up examples is what suggested it to me. I've honestly had people download that way. Click + every time and add the set as individual files. I just wanted to make that that wasn't the case here.

Somethings up with your install. I'm not sure what. All the files from prior 6.60's should have carried into the latest.

[wiggins09]

No problem, I have d/l'd like that in the early days when I was learning what did what

I uninstalled but left headers, re-installed b8 & no change.

Loaded my old config & the watches are still partially broken (this config was made about 2 weeks ago - it was working on the previous install.)

Next thing is to try an earlier build.

[wiggins09]

-update-
Rolled back to 6.60 b7 still had issues with watchlist items etc.
Tried deleting & re-writing them but still no dice. Seems odd that a search term works in one version & not in another.
I was only using literal terms not regex's.
Went right back to 6.56 & now stuff works as expected including watch terms.

[Quade]

That's what beta's for. Thanks for testing.

[wiggins09]

I like to play with betas occasionally

Pity I couldn't track exactly when the thing broke. Maybe next time

[Quade]

I've said it a couple times but you don't seem to be receptive to the idea.

It's not broken. It's doing what the code tells it to do which is, in "Folder named for subject" mode, use the the posts subject for each post. Whether this is how it's going to be in the future is something I need to decide. I have an action item to try to make this smarter.

[wiggins09]

I've said it a couple times but you don't seem to be receptive to the idea.
It's not broken.

I'm not sure you actually said that in this thread but ...
Maybe I'm not receptive because I have been looking at it in terms of it working then not vs being adjusted so that it no longer does what I expect it to.
At my end, the change seemed quite drastic & illogical as far as my understanding/usage pattern goes.
I assumed that post title (or/not just filename) & maybe the post item # [xx/xx] etc. were part of the grouping selection logic previously.

So yeah I didn't think you rockstars would intentionally kill something that is so useful! & that was what held my focus
The 'tightening' of the code in this instance worked against me - maybe there could be a separate 'to folder' command or options switch with a different selection logic?

That said, you are always tweaking & I do not know your overall scheme for new code & new features.....I'm glad you are still looking at it in any case.

[Quade]

#2, I understand the issue it's just that if you're downloading individual files you probably want them all in the same folder but, if you mark a number of sets of files, you probably want each set in its own folder.

That's why I say there's no right answer. It's something I have on my list to revisit.

#2, not sure there's a right answer for that. For some file types you one folder, for some you want individual.

Maybe I didn't say it in so many words for sure.

It's working correctly for compacted sets. It's working correctly for the uncompacted sets too but what's it's doing in that case probably isn't desirable.

Funny, I was just thinking about a new compaction method for "innersanctum"

[wiggins09]

#2, I understand the issue it's just that if you're downloading individual files you probably want them all in the same folder but, if you mark a number of sets of files, you probably want each set in its own folder.

That's why I say there's no right answer. It's something I have on my list to revisit.

#2, not sure there's a right answer for that. For some file types you one folder, for some you want individual.

Maybe I didn't say it in so many words for sure.

It's working correctly for compacted sets. It's working correctly for the uncompacted sets too but what's it's doing in that case probably isn't desirable.

Funny, I was just thinking about a new compaction method for "innersanctum"

Agreed, it is generally fine, just me finding the odd time it wasn't
Gotta love Newsbin for its many options!