| Summary: | [Discogs API] Use `anv` instead `name` artist key | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Applications] kid3 | Reporter: | ggnnotdie |
| Component: | general | Assignee: | Urs Fleisch <ufleisch> |
| Status: | RESOLVED WORKSFORME | ||
| Severity: | normal | ||
| Priority: | NOR | ||
| Version First Reported In: | unspecified | ||
| Target Milestone: | --- | ||
| Platform: | Arch Linux | ||
| OS: | Linux | ||
| Latest Commit: | Version Fixed/Implemented In: | ||
| Sentry Crash Report: | |||
|
Description
ggnnotdie
2020-12-23 20:42:16 UTC
Ofc, if value of key `anv` not an empty string :) As here for example: https://api.discogs.com/releases/16562265 Also do not forget about `artists` and `extraartists` in `tracklist` key. To make it clear, let me just try to rephrase your request as far as I understand it.
Your use "Import from Discogs" with a search ("Artist", "Album") of "Radiobomb" "X-Breed-Records 01" or "Radio Bomb" "X-Breed-Records 01". Using the current development release, API token, JSON import, you get as the album result "Radiobomb* - X-Breed-Records 01 (2020) [File, WAV]" and for the track results ("Artist", "Album") "Radio Bomb" "X-Breed-Records 01". As can be seen in your "Example" link, "name" is "Radio Bomb" and "anv" is "Radiobomb". The import takes "name", which is "Radio Bomb", which is also your expected result. This is contrary to the subject of this report, which says to take "anv" instead of "name".
Even if "anv" (artist name variation) would contain your desired result, what tells me that "anv" is always the better result and should be preferred over "name"?
By the way, if you use the "normal" HTML import without token, you get the track results "Radiobomb" "X-Breed-Records 01", but there is not alternative available in the HTML output, so there is nothing I can do in this case.
(In reply to Urs Fleisch from comment #3) > Even if "anv" (artist name variation) would contain your desired result, > what tells me that "anv" is always the better result and should be preferred > over "name"? That's right, I mixed up the places of observed and expected result. Sorry for mistake. |