#233892 - 18/09/2004 20:10
jEmplode 63
|
pooh-bah
Registered: 09/09/2000
Posts: 2303
Loc: Richmond, VA
|
First Letter of Tag and Range soup layers properly accounts for leading articles
Removed automatic selection of properties text field contents (Sorry Tony  )
Auto-filling soup playlist fields update based on changes to contained tunes (new refreshDependentTags boolean .jempegrc entry that will disable this).
Soup playlists that contain one tune are no longer always removed and readded when dependent tags change, only if it is empty after the change is complete will empty playlists be removed (fixes bug with single entry soup playlists disappearing from the table view after making a tag change)
Note: Currently auto-fill does not compare on the article-removed versions of tags, so if you have a playlist with two tunes, one artist = "The Beetles" and the other artist = "Beetles", the playlist's Artist field will be "Various" even though an articeless-collation-compare would say they those artists are the same.
Edited by mschrag (18/09/2004 20:12)
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#233893 - 18/09/2004 22:50
Re: jEmplode 63
[Re: mschrag]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 24/01/2002
Posts: 3937
Loc: Providence, RI
|
Did you turn fast rebuild back on?
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#233894 - 18/09/2004 23:09
Re: jEmplode 63
[Re: mschrag]
|
veteran
Registered: 21/01/2002
Posts: 1380
Loc: Erie, CO
|
Quote:
First Letter of Tag and Range soup layers properly accounts for leading articles.
Would this be easy to make configurable, say in your .jempegrc file?
Quote:
Did you turn fast rebuild back on?
Oooh, yes please! This would be cool!
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#233895 - 19/09/2004 00:00
Re: jEmplode 63
[Re: mschrag]
|
veteran
Registered: 21/01/2002
Posts: 1380
Loc: Erie, CO
|
Quote:
Auto-filling soup playlist fields update based on changes to contained tunes (new refreshDependentTags boolean .jempegrc entry that will disable this).
Mike, this did work, the soup view for my Radiohead albums now displays the correct container year for the Pablo Honey album (as seen in this thread). The soup did not automatically re-order though. I just re-sorted manually and am synching, we'll see if that works. Should it have re-ordered automatically?
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#233896 - 19/09/2004 00:12
Re: jEmplode 63
[Re: mschrag]
|
veteran
Registered: 21/01/2002
Posts: 1380
Loc: Erie, CO
|
Hey, while I'm at it, can I make a feature request? Case-sensitive searches?
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#233897 - 19/09/2004 01:36
Re: jEmplode 63
[Re: mschrag]
|
veteran
Registered: 21/01/2002
Posts: 1380
Loc: Erie, CO
|
Creating a soup that sorts by track # sorts the track number by string, not numerically:
1
10
11
12
2
3
4
5
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#233898 - 19/09/2004 05:15
Re: jEmplode 63
[Re: cushman]
|
pooh-bah
Registered: 09/09/2000
Posts: 2303
Loc: Richmond, VA
|
Quote:
Would this be easy to make configurable, say in your .jempegrc file?
Strictly speaking, I could make the tag/range soups configurable I think without too much pain .. My concern here is about jEmplode having different behaviors for handling basically the same situation in multiple places. What I COULD do is turn off articleless-comparisons across the board as an option ... Or do you really want articles in one place but not the other? I would need to be sold on that one a little more before doing it I think.
ms
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#233899 - 19/09/2004 05:16
Re: jEmplode 63
[Re: Daria]
|
pooh-bah
Registered: 09/09/2000
Posts: 2303
Loc: Richmond, VA
|
Quote:
Did you turn fast rebuild back on?
I keep forgetting to look into this again .. Unfortunately it's not quite a "turn back on" as much as it is "bring it back from the dead from CVS and reintegrate it," so it's a bit of work. But then so was the whole sorting soup fiasco which I thought would just be a "turn it on" so who can predict  I'll take a look at this again though.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#233900 - 19/09/2004 05:18
Re: jEmplode 63
[Re: cushman]
|
pooh-bah
Registered: 09/09/2000
Posts: 2303
Loc: Richmond, VA
|
Quote:
Should it have re-ordered automatically?
I forgot to mention that in the release notes that you should drop and readd your soups. Since I changed a fundamental aspect of the sort order, it wouldn't know where to find the old values and would likely get confused.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#233901 - 19/09/2004 05:20
Re: jEmplode 63
[Re: cushman]
|
pooh-bah
Registered: 09/09/2000
Posts: 2303
Loc: Richmond, VA
|
Quote:
Case-sensitive searches?
I think if you do a LIKE query (artist like 'james') it is a case insensitive comparison ...
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#233902 - 19/09/2004 05:21
Re: jEmplode 63
[Re: cushman]
|
pooh-bah
Registered: 09/09/2000
Posts: 2303
Loc: Richmond, VA
|
I'll take a look at it ... This would be another drop-and-readd change I suspect.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#233903 - 19/09/2004 05:23
Re: jEmplode 63
[Re: cushman]
|
pooh-bah
Registered: 09/09/2000
Posts: 2303
Loc: Richmond, VA
|
Quote:
Should it have re-ordered automatically?
Oh wait .. you're talking about something else ... You're saying after you changed the values, the field rolled up to the playlist but the playlist within the soup didn't reorder properly? I think that might be true ... and should also be a nice big pain in the butt to fix. I really opened a can of worms by getting myself into this feature -- I should have left you guys with the crappy dog food
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#233904 - 19/09/2004 11:42
Re: jEmplode 63
[Re: mschrag]
|
veteran
Registered: 21/01/2002
Posts: 1380
Loc: Erie, CO
|
Quote:
Quote:
Should it have re-ordered automatically?
Oh wait .. you're talking about something else ... You're saying after you changed the values, the field rolled up to the playlist but the playlist within the soup didn't reorder properly? I think that might be true ... and should also be a nice big pain in the butt to fix. I really opened a can of worms by getting myself into this feature -- I should have left you guys with the crappy dog food
Exactly, the field in the playlist was updated with the correct year, but the soup playlist (Albums by Radiohead) did not re-order based upon the new value.
Hey, just having soup playlists in my opinion is the bees knees. I appreciate the work you're doing here.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#233905 - 19/09/2004 11:44
Re: jEmplode 63
[Re: mschrag]
|
veteran
Registered: 21/01/2002
Posts: 1380
Loc: Erie, CO
|
Quote:
Quote:
Would this be easy to make configurable, say in your .jempegrc file?
Strictly speaking, I could make the tag/range soups configurable I think without too much pain .. My concern here is about jEmplode having different behaviors for handling basically the same situation in multiple places. What I COULD do is turn off articleless-comparisons across the board as an option ... Or do you really want articles in one place but not the other? I would need to be sold on that one a little more before doing it I think.
I actually prefer having no article stripping when comparisons are made across the board. I prefer having my "The Band" tracks down there with the T's instead of the B's.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#233906 - 19/09/2004 11:46
Re: jEmplode 63
[Re: mschrag]
|
veteran
Registered: 21/01/2002
Posts: 1380
Loc: Erie, CO
|
Quote:
I'll take a look at it ... This would be another drop-and-readd change I suspect.
If you're talking about the track number sorting problem, this was with a completely new soup playlist, one that I created new in jEmplode 63. Here is the soup I am creating:
Artist and Source
Search: (genre != "Audio Books") and (genre != "Comedy"), sort by Title
Range - Artist: [,0-9,a-c,d-f,g-i,j-l,m-o,p-s,t-v,w-z, sort by Title
Tag Layer - Artist, sort by Title
Tag Layer - Album, sort by Year
All - sort by Track #
And the Track # column is sorted alphabetically instead of numerically.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#233907 - 19/09/2004 13:08
Re: jEmplode 63
[Re: cushman]
|
pooh-bah
Registered: 09/09/2000
Posts: 2303
Loc: Richmond, VA
|
Quote:
I prefer having my "The Band" tracks down there with the T's instead of the B's.
I do too actually ...
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#233908 - 19/09/2004 14:05
Re: jEmplode 63
[Re: mschrag]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 24/01/2002
Posts: 3937
Loc: Providence, RI
|
Quote:
Quote:
Did you turn fast rebuild back on?
I keep forgetting to look into this again ..
So I should keep asking, or FOAD? 
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#233909 - 19/09/2004 14:06
Re: jEmplode 63
[Re: mschrag]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 24/01/2002
Posts: 3937
Loc: Providence, RI
|
Quote:
Quote:
Case-sensitive searches?
I think if you do a LIKE query (artist like 'james') it is a case insensitive comparison ...
Well, I thought he wanted the opposite. I should slip my empeg into the dock and start playing, but I just got up and I'm feeling lazy.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#233910 - 19/09/2004 14:06
Re: jEmplode 63
[Re: mschrag]
|
member
Registered: 11/01/2002
Posts: 171
Loc: South Bay, CA: USA
|
Hi Mike, So I just tried to do a soup sorted by: - Artist First Letter - Sorted by Artist
- Artist - Sorted by Artist
- Tunes - Sorted by Title
See the enclosed file, but I cant even explain my results this time. Maybe it's pilot error. Cheers -Ted
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#233911 - 19/09/2004 14:45
Re: jEmplode 63
[Re: TedP]
|
pooh-bah
Registered: 09/09/2000
Posts: 2303
Loc: Richmond, VA
|
Your basic problem is that "Artist First Letter sorted by Artist" is sort of meaningless. You will almost certainly have tons of different artists within a single first letter, so they'll all turn into Various, which is what you're seeing (You have a title = "W", but Artist = "Various" because there are MANY artists starting with W). Now part of the problem also is that the Various's are dynamically changing and because of the other problem where changing rollup tag values don't resort, you're getting even crazier results because they're not resorting properly. But even if they resorted properly you'd just get a big lump of Variouses towards the bottom and your letters all mixed up.
Basically you never really want to sort a First Letter by anything but "Title" -- remembering the sort order is the sort order of THAT LAYER, which is that you are sorting the first letters themselves, where title is the first letter.
Does that make sense? So if you do Artist First Letter - By Title, Artist Sorted by Artist (though I will point out here that in an Artist layer, Title = Artist, and there's actually a performance improvement if you choose to sort on Title -- this will give you the exact same results, but work /slightly/ faster), Tunes - By Title, then I think you'll get what you want, which is the first letters are in order, then the artists are ordered by name, then the songs for that artist are sorted by name.
I think the confusing part here, and it's hard to fix on the jEmplode side, is that Title tag has different meanings in different layers. Additionally realizing that everything but Title for a playlist is a synthetic field (meaning it's aggregated from the playlist contents), and you things start to make a little bit of sense.
ms
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#233912 - 19/09/2004 16:21
Re: jEmplode 63
[Re: Daria]
|
veteran
Registered: 21/01/2002
Posts: 1380
Loc: Erie, CO
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Case-sensitive searches?
I think if you do a LIKE query (artist like 'james') it is a case insensitive comparison ...
Well, I thought he wanted the opposite. I should slip my empeg into the dock and start playing, but I just got up and I'm feeling lazy.
Correct. I would like to find all tracks that have "the" contained in the title, but not "The". I like to tag all my tracks with the first letter of each word capitalized, but some CDDB entries that are entered when I rip CDs are not all first-letter-capitalized. In the advanced search, = matches the entire string, while like is case insensitive. Could you include a regex function for us? That would be ideal!
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#233913 - 19/09/2004 16:40
Re: jEmplode 63
[Re: mschrag]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 20/12/1999
Posts: 31565
Loc: Seattle, WA
|
Quote:
Removed automatic selection of properties text field contents (Sorry Tony )
But... But... *waaaaaahhhhhhh*
Configurable? Pleeeeeaase? Pretty please?
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#233914 - 19/09/2004 18:46
Re: jEmplode 63
[Re: tfabris]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 24/01/2002
Posts: 3937
Loc: Providence, RI
|
Quote:
Quote:
Removed automatic selection of properties text field contents (Sorry Tony )
But... But... *waaaaaahhhhhhh*
Configurable? Pleeeeeaase? Pretty please?
Bah, get in line, I asked for PC rebuild back first 
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#233915 - 19/09/2004 18:53
Re: jEmplode 63
[Re: cushman]
|
pooh-bah
Registered: 09/09/2000
Posts: 2303
Loc: Richmond, VA
|
Quote:
"the" contained in the title, but not "The".
Sorry -- misread the original request ...
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#233916 - 19/09/2004 19:09
Re: jEmplode 63
[Re: Daria]
|
pooh-bah
Registered: 09/09/2000
Posts: 2303
Loc: Richmond, VA
|
Quote:
So I should keep asking, or FOAD?
Nah it's a legit request ... It's just a bit of work to get it back and testing was more of a pain in the ass than the other stuff since I can't setup an automated testcase for it (I have to actually rebuild a real database and restart, etc)
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#233917 - 19/09/2004 21:08
Re: jEmplode 63
[Re: mschrag]
|
member
Registered: 11/01/2002
Posts: 171
Loc: South Bay, CA: USA
|
Wouldnt you know it.. I'm back for more help The advice on sorting by title did the trick for my "by artist" playlist. Now, I am trying to make an artist/album playlist, so it's the first letter of the artist, the album, then the track number. Here's the tag that ended up on the playlist (saves having upload a jpg): tagletter,title:artist~tag,title:artist~tag,source:source~search,tracknr:(type = "tune") So the result is that some of the albums sort just fine, some of them do the alphabetical/numerical sort (1, 10, 11, 2...) and a few sorted in a bizarre way? Did I do it right? Should I do Albums sorted by Title (based on your comment that Title changes context), or Album sorted by album? Also, should the last one be "all sorted by track #", or "tracks sort list" sorted by track #? Sorry for being ignorant.. you defintely have an excellent tool here: just need to learn the ropes a little better Cheers -Ted
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#233918 - 19/09/2004 22:40
Re: jEmplode 63
[Re: mschrag]
|
pooh-bah
Registered: 09/09/2000
Posts: 2303
Loc: Richmond, VA
|
OK, pc rebuilds will be back in for 64 ...
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#233919 - 19/09/2004 22:41
Re: jEmplode 63
[Re: mschrag]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 05/01/2001
Posts: 4903
Loc: Detroit, MI USA
|
And there was much rejoice! 
_________________________
Brad B.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#233920 - 19/09/2004 22:50
Re: jEmplode 63
[Re: TedP]
|
pooh-bah
Registered: 09/09/2000
Posts: 2303
Loc: Richmond, VA
|
Part of the problem is just that this is a brand new rather large set of changes that just have some bugs right now more than that it's you doing something wrong ... It's just going to take a couple builds to get the kinks worked out. So Q&A: Here's the tag that ended up on the playlist (saves having upload a jpg): tagletter,title:artist~tag,title:artist~tag,source:source~search,tracknr:(type = "tune") Quote:
So the result is that some of the albums sort just fine, some of them do the alphabetical/numerical sort (1, 10, 11, 2...) and a few sorted in a bizarre way?
The numerical sort problem is fixed for 64 .. When
Quote:
Did I do it right? Should I do Albums sorted by Title (based on your comment that Title changes context), or Album sorted by album?
For tag soup layers, title should always equal the tag you're souping on. So if you have an artist tag layer, then the title should be the same as the artist tag. Same for album, year, etc. So you should be able to interchangeably use album or title. Now the interesting point here is that there is definitely a different implementation for those two paths -- title uses a more optimized path, so it's possible the non-optimized path has a bug in it. I'll try to set this up and see if I get the same problem. 64 is getting a bit of an overhaul in this department actually to support reordering of playlists when rolling up tags to the playlists, so I'll just make sure to test this. If you have a chance, it actually is kind of helpful to see the screenshot -- what seems random may actually be meaningful when I see the exact order in case I can't reproduce the exact problem on mine -- I can try to setup the same values that you have in your sort.
Quote:
Also, should the last one be "all sorted by track #", or "tracks sort list" sorted by track #?
Technically you should get the same behavior ... All is defined as "type = tune", but tag layers only allow type = tune anyway by definition, so All just does extra work that you don't really need to do (it does that one last restriction that is always true). Tracks Sort layer is just a slightly more optimal layer to use for the bottom layer.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#233921 - 19/09/2004 22:51
Re: jEmplode 63
[Re: mschrag]
|
pooh-bah
Registered: 09/09/2000
Posts: 2303
Loc: Richmond, VA
|
.. pc builds and fast rebuilds too (fast rebuild = just use the data from the jEmplode in-memory database to rebuild the Empeg's database as opposed to enumerating every FID in the FID folders)
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
|
Previous Topic
Index
