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

Video IDs are being modified slightly making them unfindable in different sites #227

Closed
Aaeeschylus opened this issue Feb 21, 2021 · 7 comments · Fixed by #240
Closed

Video IDs are being modified slightly making them unfindable in different sites #227

Aaeeschylus opened this issue Feb 21, 2021 · 7 comments · Fixed by #240
Assignees
Labels
bug Something isn't working

Comments

@Aaeeschylus
Copy link

Expected Behavior

If I have a video called JMSZ-83.mp4, when I run the sorter, I expect it to search sites for JMSZ-83.
If I have a video called DMM-070807.mp4, when I run the sorter, I expect it to search sites for DMM-070807.

Current Behavior

Using the above two examples, it searches for JMSZ-083 and DMM-70807, making both videos unfindable in different sites.

Steps to Reproduce (for bugs)

Have files with trailing 0 in the ID (DMM-070807) or only 2 numbers in the ID (JMSZ-83)

Your Environment

  • Module version used: 2.3.3
  • Operating System and PowerShell version: Win10 20H2, Powershell 7.1.2
@MattePainting
Copy link
Contributor

You need to use -Strict if you don't want Javinizer to try to clean the file ID.

Check the documentation here: https://docs.jvlflame.net/using-javinizer/general-usage/sorting-files#using-strict
And file matching page for more info: https://docs.jvlflame.net/using-javinizer/file-matching

@Aaeeschylus
Copy link
Author

You need to use -Strict if you don't want Javinizer to try to clean the file ID.

Check the documentation here: https://docs.jvlflame.net/using-javinizer/general-usage/sorting-files#using-strict
And file matching page for more info: https://docs.jvlflame.net/using-javinizer/file-matching

I read that -Strict doesn't work with multi part videos. In the case that I have a situation like above and it is also multipart, is there any other solution? Or will I just have to sort with Javinizer on the first part and then manually put the other parts in the resulting folder?

@MattePainting
Copy link
Contributor

Personally, I would sort based on the first part of the video and then copy the rest of the parts over manually. Then adjust the file names, duplicate the nfo if necessary, etc.

I don't believe there is a better solution at this point.

I've only had to do this a couple times, with older titles or titles with weird ID naming.

@jvlflame
Copy link
Collaborator

Isn't the expected behavior already the case in 2.3.3. Can you show me your output with -Preview?

Test:

Javinizer -Path C:\Javinizer -Preview

Output:

Id         : DMM-070807
ContentId  : DMM070807
FileName   : DMM-070807.mp4
BaseName   : DMM-070807
Directory  : C:\Javinizer
FullName   : C:\Javinizer\DMM-070807.mp4
Extension  : .mp4
Length     : 0
PartNumber :

Id         : JMSZ-83
ContentId  : JMSZ00083
FileName   : JMSZ-83.mp4
BaseName   : JMSZ-83
Directory  : C:\Javinizer
FullName   : C:\Javinizer\JMSZ-83.mp4
Extension  : .mp4
Length     : 0
PartNumber :

The Id from the filematcher preview output is what is being used by the scrapers.

@Aaeeschylus
Copy link
Author

Isn't the expected behavior already the case in 2.3.3. Can you show me your output with -Preview?

Test:

Javinizer -Path C:\Javinizer -Preview

Output:

Id         : DMM-070807
ContentId  : DMM070807
FileName   : DMM-070807.mp4
BaseName   : DMM-070807
Directory  : C:\Javinizer
FullName   : C:\Javinizer\DMM-070807.mp4
Extension  : .mp4
Length     : 0
PartNumber :

Id         : JMSZ-83
ContentId  : JMSZ00083
FileName   : JMSZ-83.mp4
BaseName   : JMSZ-83
Directory  : C:\Javinizer
FullName   : C:\Javinizer\JMSZ-83.mp4
Extension  : .mp4
Length     : 0
PartNumber :

The Id from the filematcher preview output is what is being used by the scrapers.

Apologies, I did not realise all the cases I had which were the same were multi-part cases. Here is my output:

Id         : DMM-70807
ContentId  : DMM70807
FileName   : DMM-070807_1.m4v
BaseName   : DMM-070807_1
Directory  : N:\Testing
FullName   : N:\Testing\DMM-070807_1.m4v
Extension  : .m4v
Length     : 976.14
PartNumber : 1

Id         : DMM-70807
ContentId  : DMM70807
FileName   : DMM-070807_2.m4v
BaseName   : DMM-070807_2
Directory  : N:\Testing
FullName   : N:\Testing\DMM-070807_2.m4v
Extension  : .m4v
Length     : 1062.78
PartNumber : 2

Id         : JMSZ-083
ContentId  : JMSZ00083
FileName   : JMSZ-83_1.mp4
BaseName   : JMSZ-83_1
Directory  : N:\Testing
FullName   : N:\Testing\JMSZ-83_1.mp4
Extension  : .mp4
Length     : 1346.89
PartNumber : 1

Id         : JMSZ-083
ContentId  : JMSZ00083
FileName   : JMSZ-83_2.mp4
BaseName   : JMSZ-83_2
Directory  : N:\Testing
FullName   : N:\Testing\JMSZ-83_2.mp4
Extension  : .mp4
Length     : 1069.16
PartNumber : 2

@jvlflame
Copy link
Collaborator

Ah yep, didn't see the comment where you said both cases were multi-part. There's some special interactions going on with the multi-part to correctly get the part number. I'll see if there's any adjustments that can be made for these cases.

@jvlflame jvlflame added the bug Something isn't working label Feb 21, 2021
@jvlflame jvlflame self-assigned this Feb 21, 2021
@jvlflame
Copy link
Collaborator

jvlflame commented Mar 2, 2021

Updated matcher for logic differentiating contentId from dvdId for 5 digit IDs.

C:\> Javinizer -Path 'C:\Javinizer\Old Files\' -Preview

Id         : DMM-070807
ContentId  : DMM070807
FileName   : DMM-070807_1.mp4
BaseName   : DMM-070807_1
Directory  : C:\Javinizer\Old Files
FullName   : C:\Javinizer\Old Files\DMM-070807_1.mp4
Extension  : .mp4
Length     : 0
PartNumber : 1

Id         : DMM-234
ContentId  : DMM00234
FileName   : DMM00234_1.mp4
BaseName   : DMM00234_1
Directory  : C:\Javinizer\Old Files
FullName   : C:\Javinizer\Old Files\DMM00234_1.mp4
Extension  : .mp4
Length     : 0
PartNumber : 1

@jvlflame jvlflame mentioned this issue Mar 2, 2021
@jvlflame jvlflame linked a pull request Mar 2, 2021 that will close this issue
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
bug Something isn't working
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

3 participants