The names of my photos begin with the creation date/time from the exif header. But the sort order by filename and by date/time give different results. Reproducible: Always Steps to Reproduce: 1. Ansicht - Bilder sortieren - Nach Datum (Sort by date/time): correct order 2. Ansicht - Bilder sortieren - Nach Name (Sort by name): incorrect order Actual Results: different order Expected Results: identical order I am using MySQL as database.
This is the case of last 2.9.0 ? Try to make a test sqlite DB. It still valid in this case ? Gilles Caulier
> This is the case of last 2.9.0 ? Yes, the sorting by name is still incorrect. > Try to make a test sqlite DB. It still valid in this case ? Yes, even with a new sqlite DB the sorting by name is still incorrect.
Created attachment 74434 [details] 20120922125154-SCH.jpg Please break it down to allow us to test and reproduce: Ideally, give us two pictures which are sorted A B with sort by date and B A with sort by name.
Am 08.10.2012 21:28, schrieb Marcel Wiesweg: > https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=308063 > > --- Comment #3 from Marcel Wiesweg<marcel.wiesweg@gmx.de> --- > Please break it down to allow us to test and reproduce: Ideally, give us two > pictures which are sorted A B with sort by date and B A with sort by name. > Enclosed two pictures which sort differently. The interesting thing is, that they sort correctly, when I rename them. Is there something special with a "-"? Regards,
Created attachment 74435 [details] 201209170957210SCH.jpg
We sort as described here: http://sourcefrog.net/projects/natsort/ as you see, the difference is the "-" vs. an extra trailing 0 in your files. I tend to keep the current behavior.
Mohamed, This file is not fixed since your last work on album filter with 4.x releases ? Gilles Caulier
Mohamed, Do you see my previous comment ? Gilles Caulier
(In reply to Gilles Caulier from comment #8) > Mohamed, > > Do you see my previous comment ? > > Gilles Caulier I just saw it now, would you please give me an obvious example ?
Mohamed, I think the explainations given in comment #1. Sample files are given to comment #3 and #5. Gilles Caulier
Sabine, Can you provide more file samples to try to reproduce the problem. Thanks in advance Gilles Caulier
Sabine, Do you seen my previous comment ? Gilles Caulier
(In reply to Sabine from comment #0) Could you please provide in detail what you're actually trying to do and how? I would be a help. Thank you.
This problem still reproducible with digiKam 5.0.0 ? Gilles Caulier
I cannot reproduce this problem using digiKam 5.0.0. I close this file now. Don't hesitate to re-open if necessary Gilles Caulier