[TC11.03 x64] SyncIgnoreJunctions not working as expected

[wanderer]

My settings:

CopyLinks=2 (also tried 0)
IgnoreLinks=7
SyncIgnoreJunctions=1
SyncRecompareAfterCopy=0

I have compared two folders (sync dirs - the left is a local folder and the right a unc path) with the following settings: "Empty dirs", "Asymetric", "Subdirs".

After the comparison finished, i noticed that a bunch of junctions i had in the left drive (at lower levels of the tree) appeared in the list as existing only on the left side and marked for copy to the right side (just them, not any files under them). Since "SyncIgnoreJunctions=1", i expected them to not appear at all in the list, right?

[sqa_wizard]

SyncIgnoreJunctions=0 0: Also follow junctions (reparse points) to directories when synchronizing
1: Exclude directory junctions from synchronizing
Warning: If a directory with the same name exists on the second side, files in it seem to exist only on that side because the junction on the first side is excluded!

[wanderer]

Warning: If a directory with the same name exists on the second side, files in it seem to exist only on that side because the junction on the first side is excluded

Thanks, i had already seen that. First of all, i'm talking about the first side, not the second (i presume first side is the side with the junction (at the left) and second the other side). Secondly, this part of help talks about the files under it and not the directory itself.

From what i've read in that part of help, i couldn't understand if the junction itself should be shown or not. IMO it shouldn't but since i'm not sure, i reported it here so that either it is corrected (if Christian decides it's a bug) or the help file is changed so that it better reflects what the user should expect to see.

[ghisler(Author)]

I need a test case to reproduce the problem, e.g. some instructions where to create junctions (e.g. x levels deeper than the base of the synchrinization), and whether there is a junction or directory on the other side with the same name.

[wanderer]

2ghisler(Author)
- Create a folder somewhere in your drive.
- Copy the attached batch file in it.
- Execute it (it assumes "junction.exe" is somewhere in the path or in the same folder as the batch file).

In TC:
- Left panel=FolderA
- Right panel=FolderB
- Sync Dirs/Compare (with the same settings (screen and INI)) mentioned in my previous post).

As you can see, Folder2 appears in the comparison results. Since it is a junction and SyncIgnoreJunctions=1, according to help, it shouldn't.

SyncIgnoreJunctions=0 0: Also follow junctions (reparse points) to directories when synchronizing
1: Exclude directory junctions from synchronizing
Warning: If a directory with the same name exists on the second side, files in it seem to exist only on that side because the junction on the first side is excluded!

MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: application/octet-stream; name="test.bat"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="test.bat"

QGVjaG8gb2ZmDQoNCm1rZGlyIEZvbGRlckENCm1rZGlyIEZvbGRlckINCg0KbWtkaXIgRm9sZGVy
QVxGb2xkZXIxDQpta2RpciBGb2xkZXJBXEZvbGRlcjFcVGVzdFN1YkZvbGRlcjENCmp1bmN0aW9u
IEZvbGRlckFcRm9sZGVyMiBGb2xkZXJBXEZvbGRlcjENCg==

[ghisler(Author)]

I will try it, thanks.

[ghisler(Author)]

I have tested this now: As you already found out, SyncIgnoreJunctions=1 does not hide junctions, it just doesn't follow them. So junctions to directories would be displayed when "Empty directories" is checked, but the sync tool wouldn't look inside.

I agree that it would be better to hide them altogether. I will also update the help which only mentions following the junctions.

[wanderer]

Great, thanks for following this.

[ghisler(Author)]

This has been changed in Total Commander 11.50 beta 1, please check it!

04.10.24 Fixed: When SyncIgnoreJunctions=1, junctions to directories are now completely hidden from sync (previously, they would be shown but not followed) (32/64)

[wanderer]

OK, it seems to work correctly. It's a little confusing though that the folders are always shown left-justified, especially with Asymmetric, but it was always like this. I have recently started using Asymmetric mode and i guess it takes some time to get used to it.

[white]

OK, it seems to work correctly.

Did you test 32-bit TC as well? (I'm not saying it does not work. I'm saying it should be tested.)

[wanderer]

OK, it seems to work correctly.

Did you test 32-bit TC as well? (I'm not saying it does not work. I'm saying it should be tested.)

Right, it's a different compilation...

No i hadn't. I just did though and it has the same behavior.

[white]

No i hadn't. I just did though and it has the same behavior.

Moderator message from: white » 2024-10-09, 21:43 UTC

Moved topic
» from TC11.x bug reports (English) to TC Fixed bugs