View Issue Details
|ID||Project||Category||View Status||Date Submitted||Last Update|
|0004591||SUMo||New Feature||public||2017-12-19 12:37||2019-05-21 21:55|
|Priority||normal||Severity||minor||Reproducibility||have not tried|
|Target Version||Long term|
|Summary||0004591: Shown updates if there are several version of the same program installed|
|Description||If there are several versions of the same program installed then the older version should not inform that there is a major update available.|
Only minor updates should be reported.
|Tags||No tags attached.|
||Are both exe in the same folder ? Are both of them legitimate ?|
Different folders (default installation folders):
c:\Program Files (x86)\ABBYY FineReader 12\FineReader.exe
c:\Program Files (x86)\ABBYY FineReader 14\FineReader.exe
And yes - both are legitimate versions.
It looks so whether the Screenshot Reader (as part of Finereader) does not have that problem,
On the next picture you can see different versions of Delphi. The lower versions should show only their upgrade.
Oh - I had Screenshot Reader version 126.96.36.1996 skipped.
After I removed the 'skip update' flag it looks different.
btw. The filename of Screenshot Reader is different in version 12 & 14. So this could be another reason.
Thank you for this detailed analysis. Unfortunately, with the current implement of SUMo (both client and server) with only "one" version being active for a Product/company pair will necessarilly lead to such behavior when multiple exe files coexists with the same product/company info BUT different version info, even if legitimate.
Should you have an idea on how to manage this, any suggestion is welcome :)
I upload a screenshot of another example.
My idea how to handle it (the first problem):
You write that you have only one version active (on server) .
The client knows (or at least can know), that it checked for 3 programs the same "program line" online.
If the newest version is up-to-date then the other ones should not be marked as 'update available'.
Ignoring the program is not a solution - ignoring a specific update also not.
The only way to solve this problem at the moment would mean to exclude the folders. But then I mustn't move them anymore.
And did you take a look onto SUMo server for such cases of multiple versions detected locally with different file paths?
It happens often that the user flag is missing at SUMo server for tools detected several times on client side.
And several times it happens that among those version detected by the local SUMo installation, SUMo server reports some of them as not existing, providing % and device count only for a subset of versions detected by any SUMo user.
And in such situations of multiple versions detected locally, it happens for some of these tools that SUMo reports the same available update version while for others also proposes different update versions available. This was often the case for ImageMagick which gets released version updates rather frequently. But currently the behavior is more consistent proposing always the same update available.
||This is unfortunately "as per design". I may add an option to only take into account most up to date local version, but in some case it would not make sense. I propose to close without change.|
No, I disagree to close without change. Several users want a change. They still disagree on expected behaviour in the future.
Design decisions may change over time leading to refactorings. So it seems ok to either have it remain in target version long term of open resp. undefined. This issue is categorized as feature request not as bug.
What I still don't understand and consider a bug are those observations where local SUMo client detects tool versions locally and SUMo server declares some of these versions as non-existing.
And is it currently only possible to have none or one version flagged as user at SUMo server side or reflect also several versions as flagged as user version?
|2017-12-19 12:37||TM123||New Issue|
|2017-12-19 12:37||TM123||File Added: sumo.png|
|2017-12-19 21:12||Kyle_Katarn||Assigned To||=> Kyle_Katarn|
|2017-12-19 21:12||Kyle_Katarn||Status||new => feedback|
|2017-12-19 21:12||Kyle_Katarn||Note Added: 0002738|
|2017-12-20 13:53||TM123||File Added: Sumo2.png|
|2017-12-20 13:53||TM123||File Added: Sumo3.png|
|2017-12-20 13:53||TM123||Note Added: 0002741|
|2017-12-20 14:05||TM123||File Added: Sumo4.png|
|2017-12-20 14:05||TM123||Note Added: 0002742|
|2017-12-23 10:44||Kyle_Katarn||Note Added: 0002746|
|2017-12-23 10:44||Kyle_Katarn||Status||feedback => acknowledged|
|2017-12-23 11:01||Kyle_Katarn||Target Version||=> Long term|
|2018-03-08 08:30||TM123||File Added: Sumo_Differentversions.png|
|2018-03-08 08:30||TM123||Note Added: 0002801|
|2019-05-16 22:45||wolf||Note Added: 0003312|
|2019-05-16 22:53||Kyle_Katarn||Note Added: 0003313|
|2019-05-16 23:13||wolf||Note Added: 0003316|
|2019-05-21 21:55||Kyle_Katarn||Relationship added||related to 0005493|