Closed GoogleCodeExporter closed 9 years ago
I also tried adding a original_name = original_name double rule but it doesn't
seem to do anything.
Original comment by uselr...@gmail.com
on 21 Aug 2014 at 9:39
It depends.
If it's a resource with dynamic naming (i.e. you can't be sure about name until
picture will be fully downloaded), then yes. But if name doesn't change after
"getting list" stage, it will be skipped.
Original comment by catgirlfighter
on 21 Aug 2014 at 9:44
Actually, I can make skipping for g/exhentai. Just extension checking will be
not as accurate, because sometimes pictures does have a wrong extension (jpg
instead of png for example).
Original comment by catgirlfighter
on 21 Aug 2014 at 10:17
Changed script for g/exhentai a bit, get updates and try again.
Original comment by catgirlfighter
on 21 Aug 2014 at 11:43
Instead of the old behaviour: no skip, overwrites existing file with the same
file, it now doesn't skip but instead creates a file that ignores my naming
properties.
My properties are: $rootdir$\%album%\%original_name%
Which did create files with the original name.
Now it creates *galleryid*-*picture number*.jpg
For example, in my duplicate test, instead of skipping the existing 001.jpg and
002.jpg, it created 686220-1.jpg and 686220-2.jpg
HOWEVER, the skipping for the newly created files works. On retrying, it will
skip 686220-1.jpg and 686220-2.jpg.
But it seems that %original_name% broke and is auto-replaced by $fname$.
Original comment by uselr...@gmail.com
on 21 Aug 2014 at 1:19
Yep, analyzed is some further and the skipping works perfectly, but the naming
broke even though I didn't change anything about the naming from before the
update to after.
It can't pull %original_name% from the same exhentai gallery it could just a
few hours ago.
Original comment by uselr...@gmail.com
on 21 Aug 2014 at 1:22
It does read the original_name field correctly after generating a list, but
doesn't use it when creating a file.
Original comment by uselr...@gmail.com
on 21 Aug 2014 at 1:25
I'll check it now.
Original comment by catgirlfighter
on 21 Aug 2014 at 1:30
Updated again. Try it.
Original comment by catgirlfighter
on 21 Aug 2014 at 2:05
Yes, now both things work perfectly, thanks a lot.
(I do think grabber 1 was faster when checking for already existing images, but
that's not very important)
Original comment by uselr...@gmail.com
on 21 Aug 2014 at 2:56
>I do think grabber 1 was faster
Yeah, graber 1 was simpler in many ways (inclduing codewriting), that's why it
wasn't able to do many things as well.
Original comment by catgirlfighter
on 21 Aug 2014 at 3:05
Original issue reported on code.google.com by
uselr...@gmail.com
on 21 Aug 2014 at 9:36