Bug 8544 - Boom 7.2 branch: playlist links flattened
: Boom 7.2 branch: playlist links flattened
Status: RESOLVED WORKSFORME
Product: Logitech Media Server
Classification: Unclassified
Component: Player UI
: unspecified
: PC Windows Server 2003
: P4 normal (vote)
: ---
Assigned To: Michael Herger
:
Depends on:
Blocks:
  Show dependency treegraph
 
Reported: 2008-06-23 19:05 UTC by Jim McAtee
Modified: 2008-08-28 17:08 UTC (History)
0 users

See Also:
Category: ---


Attachments
screen capture (49.68 KB, image/x-png)
2008-06-24 19:26 UTC, Jim McAtee
Details

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description Jim McAtee 2008-06-23 19:05:47 UTC
http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=48543

I'm still seeing this in the 7.2 Boom web interface:

Individual links to artist, album & track been lost in the Playlist pane of the interface.  There's just one big link to the songinfo page. Also, when artwork is displayed in the Playlist,  there's just a titleformat'd single line of information (and one link) instead of the three separate lines of SC 7.0.x.

From bug 8333, supposedly change 20439 fixed this in 7.1 Trunk.  And I can see from the checkins list that change 20445 merged 20439 into 7.2 Trunk.  I'm not running 7.2 Trunk and I also can't tell how close the 7.2 Boom branch and 7.2 Trunk may be, since I don't have access to the checkins being made to the 7.2 Boom branch.
Comment 1 Jim McAtee 2008-06-23 20:13:06 UTC
I just installed 7.2 Trunk and it's the same as 7.2 Boom.
Comment 2 Michael Herger 2008-06-24 13:31:03 UTC
Did you change the title format? Please set it to something simple like "TITLE". The three lines are clearly there on my machine. But if you're using a title format which already has ARTIST or ALBUM in it, then that line will not be displayed.

7.2/Boom should be identical, plus the Boom changes. But merges are done semi-automatically, thus there shouldn't be one missing. You can't merge 20000 without merging 19999
Comment 3 Jim McAtee 2008-06-24 15:24:57 UTC
(In reply to comment #2)
> Did you change the title format? Please set it to something simple like
> "TITLE". The three lines are clearly there on my machine. But if you're
> using a title format which already has ARTIST or ALBUM in it, then that
> line will not be displayed.

Ok, that definitely has an effect.  I didn't know that the particular title format string affected how the playlist item links are formed.

Using just 'TITLE', or even 'DISC-TRACKNUM. TITLE (DURATION)' I see both the individual links (without artwork) and the three lines (when artwork is displayed).

Using something like 'DISC-TRACKNUM. TITLE by ARTIST from ALBUM' I see neither.

Can't the individual links be maintained no matter the title format?  I have no care whether the three line formatting comes and goes, but I would think wrapping the TITLE, ARTIST, ALBUM, and YEAR with links within the formatted string should be possible.
Comment 4 Jim McAtee 2008-06-24 19:26:07 UTC
Created attachment 3484 [details]
screen capture

Also... Is the songinfo page broken?  I have no song title and no add or play buttons.  See screen cap.
Comment 5 Michael Herger 2008-06-24 23:18:34 UTC
> Ok, that definitely has an effect.  I didn't know that the particular title
> format string affected how the playlist item links are formed.

It does. 

> Can't the individual links be maintained no matter the title format?

The skin only gets one string in this case, thus can't know what the different items should be. (In reply to comment #4)

> Also... Is the songinfo page broken?

Yes, it is (and fixing it is painful!). Songinfo is undergoing major rework to allow for "context menu" style extensions etc. See bug 6930 et al.. 
Comment 6 Michael Herger 2008-06-24 23:22:48 UTC
BTW: this is also slightly related to bug 6040 and bug 4956 - changing the format for the player interface will change behaviour in the playlist.
Comment 7 Jim McAtee 2008-06-25 02:43:54 UTC
(In reply to comment #5)

> The skin only gets one string in this case, thus can't know what the different
> items should be. (In reply to comment #4)

This is nonsense.  If anyone is supposed to understand what this means, you're going to have to do a much better job of explaining it.