Page 1 of 1

Sorting in "Synchronize directories"

Posted: 2022-04-30, 10:52 UTC
by Lolly-Bob
Hello,

in the dialog "Synchronize directories" it seems that so far only alphabetical sorting is used. Here I would like to suggest that the sorting method selected in the TC settings is used, i.e. the same as used for the normal file lists.

The issue is how the list is sorted when it is sorted by name. Then I would expect the same numerical sorting as selected in the settings.

Re: Sorting in "Synchronize directories"

Posted: 2022-04-30, 11:22 UTC
by petermad
Confirmed that the Synchronize tool alway uses name sorting method no. 1 (Alpabetical considering accents).

I agree that it should use the sort method configured for the file panels. Just like the Multi-Rename tool does.

And the Synchronize tool should start up with the same sorting (NAme, Ext. etc.) as the active file panel (included Unsorted sorting) - also as MRT does it.

Re: Sorting in "Synchronize directories"

Posted: 2022-04-30, 12:40 UTC
by Wilhelm M.
I stongly agree with Lolly-Bob's suggestion. But I am not sure about the second suggestion. Because it could mean, that the two panels of the synchronise window are sorted differently, and that would be counterproductive. In the MRT the situation is quite different - you see only the files of one panel on the one side and the possible changes on the other side, so the same order is guaranteed.

Re: Sorting in "Synchronize directories"

Posted: 2022-04-30, 12:56 UTC
by petermad
2Wilhelm M.
. Because it could mean, that the two panels of the synchronise window are sorted differently, and that would be counterproductive
The Name column of the two sides in the Synchronize tool are always sorted the same way - and that should not be changed - it wouldn't make any sense as you point out. What i suggest is that the initial sorting when finishing a Sync operation should be the same as in the ACTIVE file panel before the Sync tool was opened.

Re: Sorting in "Synchronize directories"

Posted: 2022-04-30, 15:39 UTC
by jinsight
Support ++ petermad's suggestion

Re: Sorting in "Synchronize directories"

Posted: 2022-05-01, 00:34 UTC
by Usher
I suspect that "Synchronize directories" uses natural NTFS sort order because it has to be fast enough for directories with many thousands of files and subdirectories. Have you checked sort order in "Synchronize directories" on FAT32 partition?

Re: Sorting in "Synchronize directories"

Posted: 2022-05-01, 00:49 UTC
by petermad
Have you checked sort order in "Synchronize directories" on FAT32 partition
I have - TC does not sort in the Sync tool as it does when using Unsorted (disk order) in the file panel on a FAT32 partition. TC sorts the same way on a NTFS partition and a FAT32 partion - and as I wrote before, TC is using the name sorting method no. 1 (Alpabetical considering accents), which is not the same as natural NTFS sort order.

So TC is using its own sorting, not the order of the file system, so why not use the order configured by the user.

Re: Sorting in "Synchronize directories"

Posted: 2022-05-01, 08:21 UTC
by Wilhelm M.
petermad wrote: 2022-04-30, 11:22 UTC And the Synchronize tool should start up with the same sorting (NAme, Ext. etc.) as the active file panel (included Unsorted sorting) - also as MRT does it.
Maybe I misunderstand you. But you can change the sorting order in the active panel anytime by clicking on the column header. As far as I understand, you want the Sync-Tool to start with exactly that order. However, the inactive panel, showing the fles/directories that you want to synchrtonise, can have a completely differnt order. Thats what I meant. But as I said, perhaps I misunderstand you...

Re: Sorting in "Synchronize directories"

Posted: 2022-05-01, 13:53 UTC
by petermad
However, the inactive panel, showing the fles/directories that you want to synchrtonise, can have a completely differnt order.
I am aware of that - maybe it would be better to set the initial sort order in the Sync tool to the order in the SOURCE (Left) panel - but I thought that doing it like the Multi-Rename Tool does would be more consistant.