Closed GoogleCodeExporter closed 9 years ago
As I mentioned on the forums, I'm not sure how to fix this one. It's because
EMM is
detecting them as a stacking marker. But how can I make an exception for these
when
there could be an actual case where they DO need to be cleaned? Oddly, I used
the
same code as XBMC (I literally just copy/pasted their regex) so it, too, should
be
cleaning them. Do the files not work in XBMC?
Original comment by jason.schnitzler
on 27 May 2009 at 5:55
pffff, that's a very good question.
To tell you the truth, I have never tried emm created nfos in XBMC, yet. I have
no
xbmc test environment for this purposes at the moment.
Hmmmm. I think you know the same as me.
nfo should be either identically named as the movie file or be movie.nfo to be
able
to recognize by xbmc. This is how I know at the moment. Should be tried... :)
But I doubt it will work with a different way.
Also, I am not quite sure and I was always wondered why EMM should handle
stacking in
itself?
Original comment by nadas.bence@gmail.com
on 27 May 2009 at 6:05
EMM has to handle stacking or it will show multiples of the same movie. And the
stacking markers have to be cleaned from the file name for the
nfo/poster/fanart so
the same ones can be used for each file of the multi-part move. For example:
Some.Movie.CD1.avi
Some.Movie.CD2.avi
Some.Movie.nfo
Some.Movie.tbn
Some.Movie-fanart.jpg
It would be easy to detect that the files are there, but to load/save them is a
different story.
Original comment by jason.schnitzler
on 27 May 2009 at 6:23
Yes, I know.
Let's try to solve DVDs first.
As far as I know, DVDs cannot be stacked at all in XBMC, can they?
If not, than we only have problems with how to solve CDs...
Original comment by nadas.bence@gmail.com
on 27 May 2009 at 6:30
Their regex checks for CD, DVD, and PART.
"[ _\.-]+cd[ _\.-]*([0-9a-d]+)"
"[ _\.-]+dvd[ _\.-]*([0-9a-d]+)"
"[ _\.-]+part[ _\.-]*([0-9a-d]+)"
Original comment by jason.schnitzler
on 27 May 2009 at 6:33
This is a quote from the wiki:
"Movie.nfo will override all and any nfo files in the same folder as the media
files.
If there is only one nfo file in a folder, The scraper will use it for all media
files in that folder. If there are multiple media files in a folder, the *.nfo
must
be named exactly the same as the video file it is representing (ie.
moviename.avi and
moviename.nfo). In the case of multi-part (stacked) video stacking, name the
file
either moviename.nfo or moviename-CD1.nfo where the first filename is
moviename-CD1.avi."
Based on that, I am not sure :)
"If there is only one nfo file in a folder, The scraper will use it for all
media
files in that folder." According to this, it can be understand, that any nfo
file is
fine.
But then there is this:
"In the case of multi-part (stacked) video stacking, name the file either
moviename.nfo or moviename-CD1.nfo where the first filename is
moviename-CD1.avi."
Original comment by nadas.bence@gmail.com
on 27 May 2009 at 6:46
Hmm... based on that, the files WILL work.
"In the case of multi-part (stacked) video stacking, name the file either
moviename.nfo or moviename-CD1.nfo where the first filename is
moviename-CD1.avi."
EMM is saving as moviename.nfo, so all is good.
Original comment by jason.schnitzler
on 27 May 2009 at 7:20
The only question is, if it is also working in case only one movie file is in
the
folder, eg. some.movie.DVD9.mkv
Original comment by nadas.bence@gmail.com
on 27 May 2009 at 7:41
Bah, true. I sent a PM to MrDVD earlier, asking him to test if the files work or
not.... but haven't gotten a response yet.
Original comment by jason.schnitzler
on 27 May 2009 at 8:03
Just tested... doesn't work. *sigh*
Original comment by jason.schnitzler
on 27 May 2009 at 8:16
Nahh.
I think there is two way to think about:
- I still strongly beleive, that stacking DVD files is not possible within xbmc, for
logical reasons. You of course cannot stack two iso file, nor two video_ts
dirs. All
the DVDs which consists more then one disks are showing up twice in xbmc. Also
in the
library. So I still think remove the stacking in case of DVDs is a possible
solution.
If you have a two disk DVD, yes, you will have it twice, but you need this to
start
them separetely.
- The other way is to not stack files above a given number. Eg. I cannot imagine a
movie with more than 4 parts. So all the CDx, DVDx, where x= more then 4 or D
can be
excluded from stacking. (Although I know it's still not solving the CDD problem)
Concerning DVDs, I vote for the first solution. Then you also have the chance
to edit
the second disk, which is usually some bonus disk, to indicate what it is. If
you
stack it, you lost that possibility.
Original comment by nadas.bence@gmail.com
on 27 May 2009 at 8:41
I think I solved this by saving the full name to the files instead of cleaning
the
stacking markers first. It will load files named either, but only save with the
full
name. Since XBMC can use either/or, this should work. "Clean Folders" for any
of the
<movie> types will delete both.
Also, let's say I had a move that came on 2 dvd discs. I could, theoretically,
call
them Movie.Name.DVD1.avi and Movie.Name.DVD2.avi. That's where the dvd stacking
comes
into play.
Original comment by jason.schnitzler
on 27 May 2009 at 8:51
I didn't get the point here...
Original comment by nadas.bence@gmail.com
on 27 May 2009 at 9:02
It's in SVN now. An example:
Movie.Name.CD1.avi
Movie.Name.CD2.avi
BEFORE -
EMM would save: Movie.Name.nfo
NOW -
EMM will save: Movie.Name.CD1.nfo
Since the wiki says this will work for stacked files, it should now work for
both
multi-part and single files.
Original comment by jason.schnitzler
on 27 May 2009 at 9:12
Oh, yeah!
strike of genius :)
Simple and suitable!
Great! I am going to check this out.
Original comment by nadas.bence@gmail.com
on 27 May 2009 at 9:18
Verified! Working!
Wonderful!
Thank you!
Original comment by nadas.bence@gmail.com
on 27 May 2009 at 9:24
Yay! Thanks! What I thought would be a big headache was actually pretty simple.
lol I
just hope I caught all the spots that needed changing in the code. It seems to
be
fine with the minimal testing I've done so far, but it's hard to think of and
test
all situations.
Original comment by jason.schnitzler
on 27 May 2009 at 9:37
Original comment by jason.schnitzler
on 14 Jun 2009 at 8:29
Original issue reported on code.google.com by
nadas.bence@gmail.com
on 27 May 2009 at 2:43