English > Support
Always Show Problem
patch:
--- Quote from: Laraman on June 17, 2009, 04:34:26 pm ---If the facility to make a film not visible is no longer avaliable then why is there an advanced filter to show visible or not visible films.
--- End quote ---
I believe it is how delete works in PVD. The issue is PVD runs as a relational database with links between records so when you "delete" a record, PVD just hides it, rather than deleting it and it's associated links. When you then re-add the movie PVD un-hides it with all the prior links. Not sure if this is a good or bad thing but does appear to be how PVD works.
As such show / hide invisible is a way of looking at the inner workings of PVD. I assume that is why it is an advanced filter. Might be better called Show/hide "deleted record remnants ".
This also means requests to change show / hide invisible record functionality, is actually a request to change the inner workings of PVD. No something I would do lightly.
--- Quote from: rick.ca on June 18, 2009, 07:37:02 am ---ask Nono if there's a way Kroozbox could exclude movies based on a bookmark or custom flag being set.
--- End quote ---
I agree with this approach. If Kroozbox works better with a subset of possible movies, then adding that facility to the Kroozbox interface is logical.
Laraman:
I dont wish to labour this point I am not asking for a fundamental change in the way PVD works. I am using 0.9.9.5 with this very functionality of being able to always show to hide a film and always show to unhide a film, this is the very reason why I have not progressed on to the later builds, because that functionality has now been changed to operate in a different way and I would think it would be faily easy to reinstate it.
rick.ca:
--- Quote ---I dont wish to labour this point I am not asking for a fundamental change in the way PVD works.
--- End quote ---
That's good, because it's not going to happen. If 0.9.9.5 was not not deleting posters, user data and custom fields when "deleting" a record, then this was a bug. Nostra has suggested he might easily add a "hide record" feature—but I'm sure he wasn't thinking of reintroducing a bug. If he was thinking of something that would simple "hide" rather than "delete" a record (i.e., so all its information is retained), however, it seems to me there's still a problem... How do we find a record once it has been hidden? In my database, it would be lost in a sea of over 200,000 records. I'm sorry, but the "feature" you would like to see "reinstated" would be of poor design and likely to cause problems for other users.
If a "hide record" feature is going to be of any general use, it has to be implemented as a filter. Once implemented, Kroozbox can be updated to ignore hidden records, just as it now ignores invisible records. I suspect the Kroozbox configuration could also be modified to ignore records with a custom flag set—a more practical solution to your issue that could be implemented right now.
Laraman:
Hi, I feel as if we are at cross purposes here with what I am asking. In 0.9.9.5 when a film was visible if you right clicked on it the always show menu item was present. If you pressed it the film would become grey instead of light blue and would only be invisible if the visible filter was set. Once the All Advanced filter was set then all films present in the database would be shown including the ones that were not visible with the visible flag set. The delete was never used. The data was never lost or hidden no changes were made to the data and the film data was immediately made visible again if the film was right clicked on again and always show clicked again. With the all flag set all films in the database were present not difficult to find as you suggest.
Whether it was intentional or not that is the way it worked. But now when you right click a film the always show is only there if the film is hidden not if it is visible. I think that Nostra understood what I was saying and that is why he saw the reason behind what I was asking could be made available again quite easily. It is very confusing with all the visible and invisible or hidden or unhidden.
I am quite prepared to except that the way it was not intentional but there had to have been some reason in the first place for it to have been programmed that way.
It is just the simple act of removing the always show menu item being made only available when the film is hidden that has caused the lack of functionality and is no way me requesting that programming be changed by my request to meet the individual needs of kroozbox users.
I think if you tried 0.9.9.5 and presumably builds before it and tried to use the facility you would see what I mean. I can see your point of view that filters will do the same thing, but for whatever reason that an end user might have as a reason for making a film hidden, be it based on religion, parental control, already watched, not available on a certain device within a home cinema system, then I think the ability as it was to make a film hidden is a good facility to have at the disposal of the person maintaining the database.
rick.ca:
--- Quote ---I think the ability as it was to make a film hidden is a good facility to have at the disposal of the person maintaining the database.
--- End quote ---
So if I were using the unsupported beta version 0.9.9.5, and I made 100 of my movies "hidden," how would I distinguish them from my 200,000 "invisible" records so that I might "unhide" them?
Would the filter I suggested not be a better facility? Perhaps it could even be implemented in a way that Kroozbox would see hidden records as invisible, but there would still be a separate "hidden" status flag so the state could be controlled as a filter. But I wouldn't expect nostra to out of his way to do that just to accommodate Kroozbox—especially when it's perfectly reasonable to expect your need can be satisfied with a change to the Kroozbox configuration.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version