Column sorting problem

Opus sorts files incorrect when sorting by name:

It sorts them corrrectly when turning off the numeric sorting in the folder options BUT the filenames in my example use lexicographic dates and it shouldn't matter whether one sorts them by numbers or by alphabet!?

I am using Opus 8.1.0.4 Unicode Version.

Yeah, I've noticed the same exact problem recently; but I believe PRIOR to any of the 8.1 preview releases - of which I am currently running the 8.1.0.4 ANSI version. Here's my strangely sorted folder list:

T4C4001
T11B294
T50A001
T354093
T402010
T453013
T511001

...which is sorted correctly after disabling 'Numeric order filename sorting:

T11B294
T354093
T402010
T453013
T4C4001
T50A001
T511001

Don't see how this can be 'correct' sorting regardless of what the numeric sort option is set to.

No. The sorting in both lists is correrct. That's what numeric sorting does.

Greg, I'm feeling dense... can you explain what part of the folders names are being 'numerically' sorted in the small example above? It seems reversed to me :frowning:.

4
11
50
354093
402010
453013
511001

See, a rodent's (porcupine's) point of view can be valid.
:opusicon: porcupine

I agree with porcupine's explanation of why steje's filenames are sorted as they are, but AllOlli's still look incorrectly sorted to me. It seems that Opus is only using part of the numbers when sorting, which makes sense as the numeric sorting option is meant to sort things when they have a small number in the filename, so maybe it only looks at the last X characters or something. I'm not saying that it's doing the right thing, just trying to guess what it's doing and why.

Anyway, in the mean time I'd just disable numeric sorting, at least for the directory in question.

Aha... well, while AllOlli might still be wondering what the deal is, it now makes sense to me... thanks guys. I figured it was something I was just looking to hard at. So I'm saying goodbye to Numeric sorting :slight_smile:.

Great for steje, but for my example the explanation simply isn't valid. The files ought to be sorted exactly in the same order, whether numerically or alphabetically sorted.

BTW, numeric sorting is meant to do this: Instead of sorting like this:

File-1.jpg
File-12.jpg
File-3.jpg

It should sort them:

File-1.jpg
File-3.jpg
File-12.jpg

So, this is just something for weird minds omitting the trailing zeroes. But nonetheless Opus :opusicon: should be able to perform it correctly :unamused: .

The sorting is correct.

OK, let's have a look:

The numeric sorting is activated. So the files should be sorted in ascending numbers. All filenames begin with "snapshot", so this is not of any interest. I take three of the numbers in the order Opus shows them:

20050331025200
20050411023350
20050331025208

These are snapshots written by Media Player Classic and the names reflect the time they were taken. 20050331025208 means March 31st 2005, 02:52:08 in the morning. The date is written YYYYMMDDHHMMSS, which ensures that numerical, chronological and alphabetical sorting yields identical results. So, why is it that numerical sorting in Opus puts the snapshot from the 11th of April between those taken just 8 seconds apart?
Perhaps that's because those numbers are too big for a 32bit integer value. Whatever type-induced wrapping or cutting or rounding of the values might be involved, it could produce such weird results. Perhaps it is something totally different.
And BTW, I crosschecked the display with the Windows Explorer in "use numeric sorting" mode. No such problems!

Note: The picture has changed since it was gone and I had no copy of it so I uploaded a new example to my server. The example therefore doesn't reflect numbers found in the picture but is still valid.

Ok that sorting isn't. The other is though :slight_smile:

Nine months later and this is still unresolved.

To state the problem again: It is not about the user not understanding the effect of "numeric sort order for filenames". It is about the sort code being WRONG when the numeric sort order is activated. In my example the numeric sorting is activated and the filenames are totally unsorted. But the filenames contain numbers of equal length at the same position and the sort order should be identical no matter if the option is switched on or off. The filenames are built in a way where numeric and lexicographic sort order are identical! The only thing producing the error I can think of is that the sort code makes some cast to 32bit long integer values that surely overflow when being feeded with these filenames.

Did you submit an official bug report about this? That's the way to make sure things get looked at.

Well, I submitted a bug there once. I got an automatic reply and that was all. No real reply, no effect, no nothing. What's the point of using a black hole where I can throw things and I don't even get a "We won't fix this." message? I think I painstakingly filled out a dozen of those contact forms in the last few months and have yet to get A SINGLE non-autogenerated response! This is not the sole fault of the Opus team but it turns the user away.

On the other side, you (jon) replied on this twice in the last year (though I don't understand your last post...), so posting here actually yields some response. Personal contact is somewhat better than robots ansering form submissions!

Suggestion: How about setting up a real bug tracker like Trac? This way I who submit a bug can track the status of my bug an you who develop have a better way of managing bu submissions than with a forum.

Got the tracking number of the bug you submitted previously? I'll look into it for you.

We make a great effort to reply to all support requests - most are answered in less than 24 hours. How many other companies can claim the same? For you to call it a "black hole" is quite offensive :frowning: