bug with -all - Githubissues

adamantida commented 2 months ago

fcorbelli commented 2 months ago

???

adamantida commented 2 months ago

???

-all doesn't show all files in all versions. I think the video will tell a little more. https://youtu.be/3N-ZChLBi8A

adamantida commented 2 months ago

While recording the video, I saw another bug. With updating the archive, after deleting a file. Same bug with -715 as well. I'd be a freak if I didn't download a regular zpaq to check this, and it works fine there (although it worked fine in previous versions before -update).

In the end, it's not just "-all" anymore

fcorbelli commented 2 months ago

You are using the -ads switch, that is not aligned with the new list command (aka: does not support -all. It never did) You can enforce a -ads (in the list command) to turn it off

If you do not understand (exactly) what -ads do, and don't do, I suggest to do not use this switch

fcorbelli commented 2 months ago

While recording the video, I saw another bug. With updating the archive, after deleting a file. Same bug with -715 as well. I'd be a freak if I didn't download a regular zpaq to check this, and it works fine there (although it worked fine in previous versions before -update).

In the end, it's not just "-all" anymore

???

fcorbelli commented 2 months ago

OK, maybe I understand.

You prefer a behavior more like zpaq, which creates a new version in case there are only deleted files. I just uploaded (to the upgrade channel) pre-release 59.10b which does this

Regarding -ads, on the other hand, to show individual versions rather than all of them, I don't think I will work on that. It is very complex and slow I will refine instead, perhaps, the self-alignment

adamantida commented 2 months ago

While recording the video, I saw another bug. With updating the archive, after deleting a file. Same bug with -715 as well. I'd be a freak if I didn't download a regular zpaq to check this, and it works fine there (although it worked fine in previous versions before -update). In the end, it's not just "-all" anymore

???

In the video, after deleting a file - you cannot update the archive unless some other file is updated. It's in the video. I don't quite understand the "???"

You prefer a behavior more like zpaq, which creates a new version in case there are only deleted files. I just uploaded (to the upgrade channel) pre-release 59.10b which does this

yep, This error looked strange to me, that's why I said that maybe it is. So I checked it with a regular zpaq

adamantida commented 2 months ago

You prefer a behavior more like zpaq, which creates a new version in case there are only deleted files. I just uploaded (to the upgrade channel) pre-release 59.10b which does this

thx

fcorbelli commented 2 months ago

I uploaded pre-release 59.10c, that does write in yellow... deleted file I hope this should be plus clear deleted

Do you like? Any other (very welcome) suggestions?

adamantida commented 2 months ago

I uploaded pre-release 59.10c, that does write in yellow... deleted file I hope this should be plus clear

Do you like? Any other (very welcome) suggestions?

Yep, I like that it is now visible when updating. It would also be great if deleted files were highlighted with a minus when both add(+) and delete(-) goes. But it's not necessary 😄

fcorbelli commented 2 months ago

While recording the video, I saw another bug. With updating the archive, after deleting a file. Same bug with -715 as well. I'd be a freak if I didn't download a regular zpaq to check this, and it works fine there (although it worked fine in previous versions before -update). In the end, it's not just "-all" anymore

???

In the video, after deleting a file - you cannot update the archive unless some other file is updated. It's in the video. I don't quite understand the "???"

You prefer a behavior more like zpaq, which creates a new version in case there are only deleted files. I just uploaded (to the upgrade channel) pre-release 59.10b which does this

yep, This error looked strange to me, that's why I said that maybe it is. So I checked it with a regular zpaq

Yes, you can (even with <59.10b), with a -force switch in add

I know... I know... I like switches too much 😄

Effectively it is a (default) different behavior from zpaq, and therefore it is appropriate to make it more similar

adamantida commented 2 months ago

But basically, if they're already highlighted in yellow, it's not necessary. But I think people who use No-Color will find it convenient

adamantida commented 2 months ago

Effectively it is a (default) different behavior from zpaq, and therefore it is appropriate to make it more similar

Most importantly, please write that when using -ads you should write it in "l" as well, because it was not required before

fcorbelli commented 2 months ago

But basically, if they're already highlighted in yellow, it's not necessary. But I think people who use No-Color will find it convenient

On ADS: sooner or later I'll perfect it

adamantida commented 2 months ago

But basically, if they're already highlighted in yellow, it's not necessary. But I think people who use No-Color will find it convenient

On ADS: sooner or later I'll perfect it

Oh, I meant add here, not "Files: added +2 removed -1". Discommunication has occurred

adamantida commented 2 months ago

If we talk more about the visual component, then it's strange enough that the updated files are marked as added rather than "updated". Not sure about usefulness, but it's handy to see what's updated For example: File: added 1 removed 0 updated 2

fcorbelli commented 2 months ago

Because in fact they are (added) to the version. There are never any updates in zpaq. Data is only added to the file, the initial part of which remains the same. In multipart mode it is easier to understand: the data are added (in a new chunk) I can't quickly find of an easy way to do this count, maybe I'll think about it

adamantida commented 2 months ago

I can't quickly find of an easy way to do this count, maybe I'll think about it

To use your popular line: It's very complicated and slow

adamantida commented 2 months ago

Well, thank you for asking about taste preferences, if anything it will be more convenient for someone else. I may have misspoken but come on

fcorbelli commented 2 months ago

I can't quickly find of an easy way to do this count, maybe I'll think about it

To use your popular line: It's very complicated and slow

It is REALLY complicated, because I need an extra byte, and this require a LOT of work Counting is slow Already done

DTMap::iterator p=vf[fi];
string newname=rename(p->first.c_str());
DTMap::iterator a=dt.find(newname);
if (a==dt.end() || a->second.date==0) 
files_added++;
else 
files_updated++;

Maybe I can inject into the attr. I'll think tomorrow

fcorbelli commented 2 months ago

This IS really very complicated and slow It is a very first draft. You have to use it using the -binary switch during additions (in the future I will put it maybe as default)

zpaqfranz a z:\1.zpaq *.cpp -binary

It actually also stores the date the files were created and also creates smaller files (by a little). In any case, there is still work to be done 60_10a.zip

adamantida commented 2 months ago

This IS really very complicated and slow It is a very first draft. You have to use it using the -binary switch during additions (in the future I will put it maybe as default)
zpaqfranz a z:\1.zpaq *.cpp -binary
It actually also stores the date the files were created and also creates smaller files (by a little). In any case, there is still work to be done 60_10a.zip

It looks beautiful. But I think folders should not be labeled as "#" when they are added, it looks weird; But as far as I'm concerned, it's cool that you can now see that files have been changed.

A little bit from the display: