Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

With selective copying, if you have several instances of the same module, the order of the modules is sorted by access in history and not by hierarchical order #16372

Closed
s7habo opened this issue Feb 24, 2024 · 4 comments · Fixed by #16373
Assignees
Labels
bug: pending someone needs to start working on that
Milestone

Comments

@s7habo
Copy link

s7habo commented Feb 24, 2024

Describe the bug

With selective copying, if you have several instances of the same module, the order of the modules is sorted by access in history and not by hierarchical or custom order.

Steps to reproduce

  1. Make the changes in the first instance of a module. In this case color balance rgb:

grafik

  1. Add a new instance and make the change there too. Rename it. Here it is called "blue to cyan":

grafik

  1. As expected, "blue to cyan" is hierarchically higher than the first instance. We want to keep this order when inserting it into the new photo.

grafik

  1. We now go back to the first instance and make some additional changes there:

grafik

5, We go to the lighttable and select the option "selective copy". Notice how the first instance is now at the top of the list:

grafik

  1. If we now paste this into the new photo, this order will be copied from the history into the hierarchy, which we do not want. Notice how the "blue to cyan" instance is now lower in the hierarchy than the first instance, which is now also numbered "1":

grafik

Expected behavior

The order of the instances should be structured according to the hierarchy and not according to the access time.

Logfile | Screenshot | Screencast

No response

Commit

No response

Where did you obtain darktable from?

self compiled

darktable version

4.7.0+629~gc07dd92d7

What OS are you using?

Linux

What is the version of your OS?

Ubuntu Studio 22.04

Describe your system?

Operating System: Ubuntu Studio 22.04
KDE Plasma Version: 5.24.7
KDE Frameworks Version: 5.92.0
Qt Version: 5.15.3
Kernel Version: 5.19.0-1028-lowlatency (64-bit)
Graphics Platform: X11
Processors: 8 × Intel® Core™ i7-7700K CPU @ 4.20GHz
Memory: 31.3 GiB of RAM
Graphics Processor: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070/PCIe/SSE2

Are you using OpenCL GPU in darktable?

Yes

If yes, what is the GPU card and driver?

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070/PCIe/SSE2, 8192 MB, 535.154.05

Please provide additional context if applicable. You can attach files too, but might need to rename to .txt or .zip

No response

@TurboGit TurboGit self-assigned this Feb 24, 2024
@TurboGit TurboGit added this to the 4.8 milestone Feb 24, 2024
@TurboGit TurboGit added the bug: pending someone needs to start working on that label Feb 24, 2024
@TurboGit
Copy link
Member

I can reproduce :( I hate those issues...

TurboGit added a commit to TurboGit/darktable that referenced this issue Feb 24, 2024
That is, we want to insert new items from lowest multi-priority to
highest. This is to ensure we keep the proper order into the
destination.

Fixes darktable-org#16372.
@TurboGit
Copy link
Member

As I said I hate those bugs in the history copy. It has been a long time since one was reported and I thought that we were now fully good... You proved me wrong... But not for long, I hat those bugs so I kill them. One less, is that the end of this?

See #16373.

Of course, thanks for reporting and helping us to make dt better every new day.

@s7habo
Copy link
Author

s7habo commented Feb 24, 2024

I hat those bugs so I kill them.

Yes, I understand. Those nasty little critters that spoil one's mood. I was working on a new episode today and then...

One less, is that the end of this?

I'll be sure to light it up for you when I have to lift the carpet again and one crosses my path. They won't be crawling for long. :)

@wpferguson
Copy link
Member

@TurboGit sorry to rain on your parade, but I found another history copy/paste "feature". I just tested #16373 to see if that fixed it, but sadly not. I'll raise another issue.

TurboGit added a commit that referenced this issue Feb 24, 2024
That is, we want to insert new items from lowest multi-priority to
highest. This is to ensure we keep the proper order into the
destination.

Fixes #16372.
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
bug: pending someone needs to start working on that
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

3 participants