[sweeper] Custom rules to manage recordings

[prpr]

perhaps the page could load to advanced unless the user has more standard rules than adavnced

I don't have any standard rules, yet the page always loads to there and thus it always requires another click to get it to advanced. So (!), good idea.

 

[af123]

I changed the default. I could make it an account setting easily enough if necessary.

 

[peterworks]

I changed the default. I could make it an account setting easily enough if necessary.

Yes please...

 

[prpr]

I think I prefer MM's suggestion... at least if one category has zero count, then there is probably no point selecting it, and it should select the non-zero one.

 

[af123]

Ok



You might have to click off and back on to the auto page for it to take effect when you first change it.

 

[Code is a Hole]

Hello all and many thanks to all those who make using the Humax range of recorders and other equipment a pleasure to use

I am now retro-actively sorting some previously unsorted recordings, thanks to my new knowledge of sweeper

Some of the recording only have episode names, rather than a S??/Ep?? entry, so sorting is prolonged process, I've figured an spreadsheet solution which works well, but...

When a move recording with or without create folder or copy recording with or without create folder, you get [ And: Stop processing rules. ], rather than [ And: Continue to next rule. ]

Do the rules stop being processed when a move recording rule is being actioned, otherwise it could take a very long time having to wait for each run of the rule to just move one recording

Could some please explain how a move rule works please, or rather when a match is found and when a match is not found

 

[Black Hole]

Could some please explain how a move rule works please, or rather when a match is found and when a match is not found

On auto-trigger:

Scan for recordings within sweeper scope; if recording found:​

Process rules against recording until end of rules or "stop processing rules".​

​

If no more recordings: end until next auto-trigger; else: scan for next recording.​

​

Thus every recording (within scope) has the rules applied to it on every auto-process scan; the "stop" only applies to the rules for one recording, within one scan.

It is also entirely possible a recording will be scanned twice in a run, if a move puts it further down the scan path.

 

[Code is a Hole]

If no more recordings: end until next auto-trigger; else: scan for next recording.

Thank you Black Hole

That is where I'm puzzled, as every rule is a separate episode, based on episode name, [ %epname ], a series with say twenty episodes will have a rule entry for every episode, each episode being processed individually, so at the end of each rule is [ And: Stop processing rules. ]

 

[Black Hole]

And: Stop processing rules.

That is a courtesy reminder that you can only perform one action on a recording within one sweeper run. It was not originally envisaged to do very complicated things, it was meant to just move things to specific folders based on simple rules but has grown a bit.

That is where I'm puzzled, as every rule is a seperate episode, based on episode name, [ %epname ], a series with say twenty episodes will have a rule entry for every episode, each episode being processed individually

So? An auto-processing run triggers (every 10 minutes if you haven't altered that), starts sweeper in its turn, then sweeper scans for candidate recordings. For each one it finds, the rule set is applied. If/when it finds a condition match, the associated action is applied.

Conditions are exclusive - only the first one that matches has its action applied. That means you can create a hierarchy of conditions with the most exclusive one at the top, and then a final "catch all" condition at the bottom to handle everything that hasn't been weeded out further up:

1. Afternoons​

2. Wednesdays​

3. All​

​

Something recorded on a Wednesday morning matches rule 2 (not 1 nor 3), something recorded on a Wednesday afternoon matches 1 (not 2 nor 3), something recorded on a Thursday matches 3 (not 1 nor 2).

So your conditions isolate an individual episode, and each individual episode is processed individually... within the same sweeper run. I don't know how many ways you want me to say the same thing:

Get recording, process rules on it until end or stop. Get next recording, process rules on it until end or stop. Repeat until no more recordings, do it all again next auto-process run.​

Having done the action, be aware the recording will be scanned again in 10 minutes. Hopefully you have ensured it can't match a condition after it has already been processed (when used to simply re-file recordings, the destination folder is usually not in the scan path - which guarantees the recording won't be scanned again).

What you are doing goes way beyond any intention of sweeper, or anything that seems sensible "just for telly". Which is OK if you are obsessive and/or bored, but definitely not mainstream. For once-off manipulations, it is more efficient to do it manually than write code which does it once and is then redundant.

 

[Code is a Hole]

I don't know how many ways you want me to say the same thing

Thank you again Black Hole

Well, how many ways, that's an interesting stance, how about until the answer is understood, which you have now achieved

Which is OK if you are obsessive and/or bored, but definitely not mainstream

I have no problem or issue with eccentric, it's what makes us all different and no one should feel they have to impose their own viewpoint on others, or ridicule

Thanks to this group I have come to terms with sweeper, it is saving me a load of time and, everything is becoming nicely filed

"just for telly"

Seems a bit opinionated, it's a bit like "it's only football" or "not more tennis", again it's what makes us unique

obsessive

Do you say the same about those who watch football, or watch the soaps

Until someone is fully versed with an individuals' circumstances is it not better to keeps one's opinions private, after all someone who maybe obsessive, bored, mainstream or not mainstream, it has no bearing on a decision to answer a query

 

[Black Hole]

Seems a bit opinionated

There is no moratorium on expressing opinions, and sometimes an independent opinion can make somebody realise they are on the wrong track. What isn't right is for you to assume an expressed opinion is not well-meaning.

how about until the answer is understood

The same information was available previously; it would have been more appropriate for you to spend your time understanding the previous answer than asking me to spend my time rephrasing it. Genuine thanks that I did would be more appropriate than sarcasm.

 

[Black Hole]

Maybe you didn't see this bit if you were reading while I was still editing:

For once-off manipulations, it is more efficient to do it manually than write code which does it once and is then redundant.

 

[Code is a Hole]

I'm trying to locate some additional information as to how [ %asuniqfilename:string: ] functions

Could someone with an understating of the syntax please post some working examples

 

[/df]

You should expect it to work like this:

• replace any Humax-unfriendly characters in the parameter with _;
• if the parameter doesn't have an initial /, prepend with the active recording's directory;
• return the first name for which name.ts doesn't exist, starting with the processed parameter value and then appending "_2", "_3", ..., in turn (or as TFM says, "append a number to the end to make it unique").

Eg, if you have recordings named "Programme" and "Programme_2" in the directory in which your rule is running, %asuniqfilename:"Programme": should return "Programme_3".

 

[Code is a Hole]

Thank you again /df, it seems that [ %asuniqfilename:string: ] doesn't quite suit the usage, [ :string: ] being the vague area, wouldn't [ :title: ] be a more self-explaining wording

And now for something completely different, which thread is best suited for a question on the auto-processing of tasks, for example, one Humax HDR Fox T2 seems to cycle [ sweeper ] rules every five minutes, the other Humax HDR Fox T2, it's nearer ten minutes, I've set the [ How often should auto-processing run (in minutes)? ] to 5 (mins), what process takes (32.424 seconds) to complete

4782 26/10/2020 01:59:12 - Auto processing completed in 548.939 seconds. (9.1 minutes)
4781 26/10/2020 01:59:12 - No mpg flags in filesystem, suppressing scan.
4780 26/10/2020 01:59:12 - No mp3 flags in filesystem, suppressing scan.
4779 26/10/2020 01:51:26 - Flagged /media/My Video/Goodnight Sweetheart_20201022_2015.ts as lock
4778 26/10/2020 01:50:41 - No dedup flags in filesystem, suppressing scan.
4777 26/10/2020 01:50:40 - Active flags: shrinkR decryptR shrink decrypt sweeper expire
4776 26/10/2020 01:50:40 - Scan completed (32.424 seconds) (9 hours)
4775 26/10/2020 01:50:07 - Scanning media for flags...
4774 26/10/2020 01:39:12 - Auto processing completed in 550.828 seconds. (9.1 minutes).
4773 26/10/2020 01:39:12 - No mpg flags in filesystem, suppressing scan.
4772 26/10/2020 01:39:12 - No mp3 flags in filesystem, suppressing scan.

Is there any way of finding what process(es) is(are) taking so long to complete please

 

[Code is a Hole]

Had a look around on the HDR Fox T2 which takes the longest time to complete a scan process, it appears to be the HDR Fox T2 which has the [ qtube and co ] and [ schedchk ] packages installed, maybe time to swap threads

 

[Black Hole]

one Humax HDR Fox T2 seems to cycle [ sweeper ] rules every five minutes, the other Humax HDR Fox T2, it's nearer ten minutes

WebIF >> Settings >> Auto-Processing Settings

 

[Code is a Hole]

WebIF >> Settings >> Auto-Processing Settings

Yes, I know, that's where I looked, both are set at five minutes, the question was what is using all the processing time, rather than how do I set both boxes to five minutes

I've set the [ How often should auto-processing run (in minutes)? ] to 5 (mins)

again, as I mention, both boxes are set to five minutes

 

[MymsMan]

the question was what is using all the processing time,

If you change the debugging level in the auto processing settings you will get (a lot) more detail in the auto.log and will be able to work out what each phase is taking

Since you mentioned schedchk the time for that is largely dependent on the number of events in your recording schedule and the threshold setting, it takes about 30 seconds to scan my system with threshold 36 but increases with longer threshold values.

 

[Code is a Hole]

Thank you MymsMan, as this box is a support box to record scheduling conflicts on my main box, there are only fifteen recordings scheduled, a mix between series link and single recordings, single recordings are picked out using a remote scheduling rule, as only certain recordings are required, also some of the higher numbered channels record everything including repeats when set on series link, at least that is what I've seen for the programmes I have recorded in the past