Possibility to comment several times on the same destination

[rm-veil]

Howdy! It'd be great if there was a possibility to choose how many times you wanna comment to the same destination (e.g. profile, group, etc.) before commenting to the next link. I think many users use this project to CommentForComment e.g. 3x3 6x6 (me as well).

It should look something like this: You set the X quantity for all destinations in config.json. Script comments X times to the first destination, then X times to the second, and so on.

If you think this feature not worth your time, could you please tell me what I should change in the code to comment several times to the same destination? I tried to put several identical links to the destinations array in config.json, but it's just endless Getting profile & group ids from URLs in config... Adding slightly modified links e.g. https://steamcommunity.com/profiles/765XXXXXXXXXXXXXX https://steamcommunity.com/profiles/765XXXXXXXXXXXXXX/ helped, but 2 comments (+2 if user have custom url) is a maximum.

Perhaps the answer to my question lies on the surface, but I'm not really js developer.

[rm-veil]

I tried to put several identical links to the destinations array in config.json, but it's just endless Getting profile & group ids from URLs in config...

Just found out how to pass through Getting profile & group ids from URLs in config... Commented this code in src>helpers>loadDestinations.js to disable check for duplicate entries (wondering if it's broke smth)

let existingEntry = results.find((f) => f.raw == e);

if (existingEntry) {
    logger("debug", `loadDestination(): Found duplicate entry for '${e}', using it instead of resolving entry again...`);

    results.push({
        raw: e,
        processed: existingEntry.processed,
        type: existingEntry.type
    });

    return;
}

[3urobeat]

Hey, thanks for opening an issue!

My intention was that the user would just provide the same link multiple times, yeah.
This also allows you to send different amounts of comments per destination and does not overcomplicate things.
That's also the reason of the check you've extracted there, it tries to reuse entries to reduce the amount of requests to Steam.

It should not get stuck at resolving - and I thought I had tested it - maybe I have missed something. I'll take a look at it later and will comment again.
Thanks for letting me know!

[3urobeat]

This has been fixed in Version 2.2.1.