I'm more curious about how well Opus handles those descript.ion files when the files they're linked to get moved, copied, etc., and if there's a way to do the same from a script.
Current scenario : I have a script to add values to custom fields (not just descriptions) to some of my files, and it works with both ADS and "loose" files (sort of like a sidecar file), which is handy for file systems that don't support ADS.
The problem is keeping those sidecar files tied to their corresponding files. I use OnFileOperationComplete for that, but it only covers renaming.
Is there any way to extend that to copying, moving, or deleting too?
Interesting - but OnFileOperationComplete won't monitor a random file you are manually renaming at some point (correct me if I'm wrong). The reason why I am enamored of Opus' handling of descript.ion is that whatever you do with any file - provided you do it within Opus - the monitoring of files is already active, and it will almost instantly react to renaming, copying, moving.
Maybe this could indeed be extended to other mechanisms in similar fashion. For instance: under Settings > Preferences > File Operations, there could be a new section where we can define relations between a file and its semaphores - or what you call "sidecar file(s)", and activate the option to copy and move the file with its original (maybe also rename it like its original). In addition to this, also a hook, such as a user command, or the name of a script to call when the operation finishes - so a script could do other things in addition.
This would certainly take it a step further and extend the power of Directory Opus beyond its already impressive magic.
I don't think that's a good idea (or even related to the topic discussed here), as the average user can very easily misinterpret such an option, getting undesirable results and then come here to vent their frustration
Oh I can think of 3 dozens of other options that can "very easily be misinterpreted" - including the switch between descript.ion and ADS and its different options. I wouldn't be so overly protective of "dummies" (or whatever you would call them).
The only reason I’m here is to help and get help, not to call anyone names.
My point is that tasks like automated file moves or deletions shouldn’t be so easily accessible. Anyone who really needs that can rely on the scripting API, which could very well be expanded to support more operations. That’s the topic here and just my personal opinion. You don’t have to agree, and I’m fine with that.
You're right on your first point: I forgot for a moment that scripts can be called by events. So adding events for Copy and Move would leverage things. I suppose you assumed a relation between original file and "sidecar file" so that the script could ensure the copying or moving of similar files - for instance those with exactly the same name but having a different extension. I would greatly welcome this possibility too.
