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

Ability to navigate/collapse sections in Scan results better #110

Open
GoogleCodeExporter opened this issue Apr 2, 2015 · 0 comments
Open

Comments

@GoogleCodeExporter
Copy link

What steps will reproduce the problem?
1. Perform a scan

What is the expected output? What do you see instead?

I have a large number of Missing episodes. they are useful to me because I wish 
to obtain some or all of them at some point. I ignore the ones I never want to 
obtain, but do not want to ignore files unnecessarily because my ignore list is 
also large.

I would like it to be easier to skip to the sections following the Missing 
section, because I use the Copy, Move, Rename, and Download sections more 
often. The ability to collapse each section would be useful. In addition, it 
might be best to reorganize the sections. It seems to me that the sections 
should be organized by the degree of volatility. In my estimation, that order 
would be:
  1. Copy: Most volatile because this operation is normally incorrect. For me, it occurs when a file has been double-flagged as belonging to two or more series.
  2. Rename: Again, unless this is being performed because I changed a series or episode name, Renaming without Moving is probably an incorrect action, because the file has already been moved from my Download folder and organized into my media.
  3. Move: For my purposes, this operation is normally valid, but it is the next most volatile so should be listed next.
  4. Download: This is harmless and normally valid, but it still takes an action, unlike Missing.
  5. Missing takes no inherent action, it belongs at the bottom.

What version of the product are you using? On what operating system?

2.2.0b7

Original issue reported on code.google.com by [email protected] on 20 Apr 2011 at 11:04

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

1 participant