Synchronize directories - identical files are shown diferent

Here you can propose new features, make suggestions etc.

Moderators: white, Hacker, petermad, Stefan2

mslav
Junior Member
Junior Member
Posts: 26
Joined: 2009-09-18, 10:59 UTC
Location: Russia

Post by *mslav »

MVV wrote:
mslav wrote:Now I understand you. In fact, you want to have PRIORITY of content comparison before date comparison.
I already wrote about it:
MVV wrote:Maybe sync tool needs an option to check file contents before dates because this mode currently can't be realized directly with this two options 'ignore dates' and 'by contents'. Maybe visually this may be added as third state of 'ignore dates' checkbox - as 'grayed' state. So, if 'by contents' is checked and 'ignore dates' is grayed, TC will compare contents and then mark equal files with '=' or suggest to keep newer file if size/contents differ..
8)
Yes, but my proposal does not require additional checkboxes or checkstates :wink:
User avatar
MVV
Power Member
Power Member
Posts: 8702
Joined: 2008-08-03, 12:51 UTC
Location: Russian Federation

Post by *MVV »

mslav wrote:Yes, but my proposal does not require additional checkboxes or checkstates :wink:
But you suggest to change thing which is used for many years by TC users. This will cause mess. My suggestion just adds new mode and uses unused checkbox state (so logic remains). :)

Note that 'ignore dates' checkbox currently does that it says - fully ignores file dates.
mslav
Junior Member
Junior Member
Posts: 26
Joined: 2009-09-18, 10:59 UTC
Location: Russia

Post by *mslav »

MVV wrote:
mslav wrote:Yes, but my proposal does not require additional checkboxes or checkstates :wink:
But you suggest to change thing which is used for many years by TC users. This will cause mess. My suggestion just adds new mode and uses unused checkbox state (so logic remains). :)

Note that 'ignore dates' checkbox currently does that it says - fully ignores file dates.
OK, you are right from the position of the formal logic. But in real life the state != is not very much informative because at the end you always need to know which file is more actual (newer). So I think everybody will use "greyed" state instead of "checked" :)
Buczo
Junior Member
Junior Member
Posts: 15
Joined: 2009-09-20, 14:13 UTC
Location: Poland

Post by *Buczo »

I would prefer mslav solution but both will resolve the problem.
In my opinion should be less options possible - it is more clear for users I think.
Last edited by Buczo on 2009-09-21, 09:55 UTC, edited 1 time in total.
mslav
Junior Member
Junior Member
Posts: 26
Joined: 2009-09-18, 10:59 UTC
Location: Russia

Post by *mslav »

Buczo wrote:In my opinion should be less options possible - it is more clear for users I think.
I agree, but the final decision will be made by Author! :)

And another my proposal is to move this thread into "TC7.5 suggestions" forum. It's definitely not a BUG :wink:
User avatar
ghisler(Author)
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 48074
Joined: 2003-02-04, 09:46 UTC
Location: Switzerland
Contact:

Post by *ghisler(Author) »

[mod]Moved to suggestions[/mod]
Author of Total Commander
https://www.ghisler.com
deelaw
Junior Member
Junior Member
Posts: 2
Joined: 2016-05-28, 03:34 UTC

Post by *deelaw »

Balderstrom wrote:That's all the "!=" sign means, files have a different time stamp, not that they are different content-wise.


SyncTool, Compare:
[x] Ignore Date
[x] Compare by Content, Those files are NOT equal, !=
Why? You are IGNORING the date, thus SyncTool is telling you they are different so YOU can decide what to do with them. If you allow date comparison the Arrows miraculously appear.

It wouldn't matter what content the same named file has, once you Ignore Date, the only result you can get is "!=" or "==". The only --> or <-- results you will get are for missing files on either side.

This is expected behaviour, TC can't guess which file you intend to keep when you wont let it make a decision based on Date.

As noted, it would be better if we had:
Compare by Content
  • [x] If date is different
  • [x] If size is different
If neither checked, then it will always compare by content. And would give the end user control.
I second this. I am using DC to compare hundreds of folders, On the left I have my master folder of photos, on the right I have another backup folder which "might" contain different/additional files. The files on the right all have screwed dates from when the files were copied (it updated the modification time). So now when I compare the folders in DC using "ignore date" and "by contents" it gives no useful indication of files that actually differ by content (rather than date). So it's basically useless for this task unless I first go and manually do a left > right sync of all the modification dates using some other program, which is doubling the amount of work I need to do.

I was going to post a screen shot for clarification but apparently your anti-spam policy wont let me. You can look it up here: imgur slash KZEgzPw.jpg

(Moderator: http://i.imgur.com/KZEgzPw.jpg)


Note "Picture 079.jpg" on the right is a zero byte file. I need some sort of indication that the contents are different. I personally don't think the output I am getting is intuitive, considering the options I have checked to "ignore date" and "by contents". I would expect the screen to show all the content-identical files to display as == and Picture 079 to be highlighted (as well as the orphan file on the right).

I've taken the time to write this post as I am literally a first time user, and I love the program, but the results I got were simply illogical. Though I understand your rationale, I doubt most new users would.
gdpr deleted 6
Power Member
Power Member
Posts: 872
Joined: 2013-09-04, 14:07 UTC

Post by *gdpr deleted 6 »

deelaw wrote:[...]
Welcome to the Total Commander forum! You do not seem to to realize that you are writing about your problems with or feature wishes for Double Commander in a forum and thread that is all about Total Commander. Double bonus points for necroing an almost seven years old thread while doing so...
deelaw
Junior Member
Junior Member
Posts: 2
Joined: 2016-05-28, 03:34 UTC

Post by *deelaw »

elgonzo wrote:
deelaw wrote:[...]
Welcome to the Total Commander forum! You do not seem to to realize that you are writing about your problems with or feature wishes for Double Commander in a forum and thread that is all about Total Commander. Double bonus points for necroing an almost seven years old thread while doing so...
Oh ffs. :roll:

Sorry.

But how do they have literally the exact same feature with the same behavior?

Anyhoo I guess I'll check out TC so I can whine about the right program.
Post Reply