mirror of
https://github.com/koel/koel.git
synced 2026-04-25 08:46:00 +03:00
[GH-ISSUE #200] When moving files around, playlists songs are not kept #143
Labels
No labels
Authentication
Dependencies
Documentation
Feature Request
Flac
Help Wanted
Installation/Setup
Integration
Mobile
PR Welcome
Pending Release
Performance
Playlist
S3
Search
Sync
[Pri] Low
[Pri] Normal
[Status] Keep Open
[Status] Needs Author Reply
[Status] Needs Review
[Status] Stale
[Status] Will Implement
[Type] Blessed
[Type] Bug
[Type] Duplicate
[Type] Enhancement
[Type] Help Request
[Type] Question
[Type] Task
pull-request
No milestone
No project
No assignees
1 participant
Notifications
Due date
No due date set.
Dependencies
No dependencies set.
Reference
starred/koel-koel#143
Loading…
Add table
Add a link
Reference in a new issue
No description provided.
Delete branch "%!s()"
Deleting a branch is permanent. Although the deleted branch may continue to exist for a short time before it actually gets removed, it CANNOT be undone in most cases. Continue?
Originally created by @tomcodes on GitHub (Jan 22, 2016).
Original GitHub issue: https://github.com/koel/koel/issues/200
I have around 4000 files in library and have reorganized all of them. I noticed all the songs I had added to playlists have been lost (but the playlists are kept).
It would be interesting to keep songs in playlists even when files are moved.
I understand song_id is generated based on the path of your song so it might be complicated to generate song_id based on something else, like a fingerprint of the track.
I will try to look into it.
@phanan commented on GitHub (Jan 22, 2016):
When you move the songs around manually, there's no way to keep track of them. Even desktop applications will fail to do so.
@tomcodes commented on GitHub (Jan 25, 2016):
I think there would be a way by fingerprinting tracks based on their headers, instead of their relative path. What do you think? Is it worth investigating?
@phanan commented on GitHub (Jan 25, 2016):
Can't say I'm familiar with such a technique, but doesn't it require opening every file with each scan (if feasible at all)? That would be a hell of memory consumption I think. Let's not over complicate this.