home
products
contribute
download
documentation
forum
Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
All posts
Latest activity
Members
Registered members
Current visitors
Donate
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Search titles only
By:
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More options
Contact us
Close Menu
Forums
MediaPortal 1
Development
Improvement Suggestions
Scanning for new/updated channels results in a mess
Contact us
RSS
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="doveman" data-source="post: 703713" data-attributes="member: 67412"><p>I don't understand how you can say there's no such thing as a separate table and then say there are two <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite5" alt=":confused:" title="Confused :confused:" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":confused:" /></p><p></p><p>Is the table that stores the channels the one which consists of what we've been calling the unique ID? Which used to be just channel name, but has now been changed to the three identifiers? And does the table that stores the tuningdetails not consist of (in part at least) the three identifiers? If so, it seems there is some unnecessary duplication happening, which is what I'm questioning.</p><p></p><p>I think jameson_uk gave a good example of the problem when he explained that:</p><p></p><p></p><p>So it seems that by relying on the three identifiers, MP will get confused, whereas if it looked at the channel name, it would be able to see that ITV2+1 was now using different identifers and any scheduled recordings for that channel would proceed without problem.</p><p></p><p>This sort of thing might not happen very often, but it seems that it wouldn't be that hard to make MP able to cope with it. It seems like sticking your head in the sand to say "We are not going to base our normal flow on providers who define their own rules." as ultimately, if broadcasters are going to choose to ignore the DVB specs and MP can be made to be able to accomodate what the broadcasters are doing, it seems only sensible to do so.</p><p></p><p>Having said that, if this sort of thing only happens very rarely, and it would require a lot of work to make MP be able to cope with it, I appreciate if no-one wants to spend their time doing so. Perhaps the time would be better spent implementing an easy way for users to manually tell MP when a channel has moved/changed name (which probably happens more often than a channel being assigned new identifiers), so that scheduled recordings work.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>OK, that clearly complicates things then. What source is that (DVB-S?). And it has 4 channels with exactly the same name? Sorry, I just find it bizarre (stupid even) that a broadcaster would give the same name to 4 different channels! Can I ask what happened before, when MP was using the channel name as the unique ID, and you tried to record one of those channels? Did it just pick one at random?</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="doveman, post: 703713, member: 67412"] I don't understand how you can say there's no such thing as a separate table and then say there are two :S Is the table that stores the channels the one which consists of what we've been calling the unique ID? Which used to be just channel name, but has now been changed to the three identifiers? And does the table that stores the tuningdetails not consist of (in part at least) the three identifiers? If so, it seems there is some unnecessary duplication happening, which is what I'm questioning. I think jameson_uk gave a good example of the problem when he explained that: So it seems that by relying on the three identifiers, MP will get confused, whereas if it looked at the channel name, it would be able to see that ITV2+1 was now using different identifers and any scheduled recordings for that channel would proceed without problem. This sort of thing might not happen very often, but it seems that it wouldn't be that hard to make MP able to cope with it. It seems like sticking your head in the sand to say "We are not going to base our normal flow on providers who define their own rules." as ultimately, if broadcasters are going to choose to ignore the DVB specs and MP can be made to be able to accomodate what the broadcasters are doing, it seems only sensible to do so. Having said that, if this sort of thing only happens very rarely, and it would require a lot of work to make MP be able to cope with it, I appreciate if no-one wants to spend their time doing so. Perhaps the time would be better spent implementing an easy way for users to manually tell MP when a channel has moved/changed name (which probably happens more often than a channel being assigned new identifiers), so that scheduled recordings work. OK, that clearly complicates things then. What source is that (DVB-S?). And it has 4 channels with exactly the same name? Sorry, I just find it bizarre (stupid even) that a broadcaster would give the same name to 4 different channels! Can I ask what happened before, when MP was using the channel name as the unique ID, and you tried to record one of those channels? Did it just pick one at random? [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
MediaPortal 1
Development
Improvement Suggestions
Scanning for new/updated channels results in a mess
Contact us
RSS
Top
Bottom