0001656: Duplicate filter not working [properly]

Notes
(0001045) Kyle_Katarn (administrator) 2012-08-08 15:07	screen.png : Sometimes the dupliate entry is NOT just right after the current one.

(0001046) bytehead (updater) 2012-08-08 15:29 edited on: 2012-08-08 15:54	I don't see any true duplicates here: some entries just have common {Product;Company;Version} properties, but always different file names and/or bitness. Whats wrong with that? Of course, it would be perfect if SUMo could somehow show only main .exe file from any application package (without all these redundant components), but so far I don't see how this can be achieved under current design. So, for me its more of a feature, not a bug ;) P.S. For now the only remedy is to ignore redundant items manually (when 0001664 is fixed, of course)

(0001052) Kyle_Katarn (administrator) 2012-08-08 21:37	You have multiple items with exact same { Name+bitness / Company / version number } Duplicate filter has been implemted to "merge" all these into 1 single line.

(0001061) bytehead (updater) 2012-08-08 23:23 edited on: 2012-08-08 23:27	Actually I was just planning on filing a separate bug report to change this original behavior. My idea was that duplicate items filter must always take into account full file names, i.e. use {Product[+bitness];Company;Version;Full_File_Name} combo. Otherwise, current ["fixed"] implementation would not only lessen redundant components in the list as on my screenshot (your original intention, I guess), but also would hide all other copies of the same app/component in other locations. AFAICT, this is bad at least for: a) popular 3d party components bundled with other apps, that sometimes require manual updates (mostly out of security concerns); b) portable apps of the same version installed alongside "normal" ones (because of privacy concerns or just for testing). A compromise solution would be to only add File_Path (w/o file name) to the deduplication filter, this would allow to collapse most redundant entries (like in my case), while also taking care of the above a) and b) use cases. What do you think?

(0001062) Kyle_Katarn (administrator) 2012-08-08 23:47	Your compromise is probably the wisest way to go.

Issue History
Date Modified	Username	Field	Change
2012-08-03 22:21	Kyle_Katarn	New Issue
2012-08-03 22:21	Kyle_Katarn	Status	new => assigned
2012-08-03 22:21	Kyle_Katarn	Assigned To	=> Kyle_Katarn
2012-08-03 22:21	Kyle_Katarn	File Added: sumo_bug.png
2012-08-03 22:21	Kyle_Katarn	Issue generated from: 0001177
2012-08-03 22:21	Kyle_Katarn	Relationship added	related to 0001177
2012-08-08 15:06	Kyle_Katarn	File Added: screen.png
2012-08-08 15:07	Kyle_Katarn	Note Added: 0001045
2012-08-08 15:29	bytehead	Note Added: 0001046
2012-08-08 15:54	bytehead	Note Edited: 0001046	View Revisions
2012-08-08 15:56	bytehead	Relationship added	related to 0001664
2012-08-08 21:37	Kyle_Katarn	Note Added: 0001052
2012-08-08 23:23	bytehead	Note Added: 0001061
2012-08-08 23:27	bytehead	Note Edited: 0001061	View Revisions
2012-08-08 23:47	Kyle_Katarn	Note Added: 0001062
2012-08-09 20:06	bytehead	Summary	Duplicate filter not working => Duplicate filter not working [properly]
2012-08-09 20:06	bytehead	Description Updated	View Revisions
2012-08-12 00:02	Kyle_Katarn	Status	assigned => resolved
2012-08-12 00:02	Kyle_Katarn	Fixed in Version	=> 3.4.1
2012-08-12 00:02	Kyle_Katarn	Resolution	open => fixed
2012-08-12 00:03	Kyle_Katarn	Relationship deleted	related to 0001664