Scanning Directories Not Found: 0


-
  <b>Log Data</b>

  Curse Client Starting...
----------------------------------------
  Task Executing: GameInstalls

- CGameInstanceDatabase - Unable to set file access on M:\Spiele\World of Warcraft\interface\addons. Exception: Message:Manche oder alle Identitätsverweise konnten nicht übersetzt werden.
- Stack Teace:    bei System.Security.Principal.NTAccount.Translate(IdentityReferenceCollection sourceAccounts, Type targetType, Boolean forceSuccess)
-    bei System.Security.Principal.NTAccount.Translate(Type targetType)
-    bei System.Security.AccessControl.CommonObjectSecurity.ModifyAccess(AccessControlModification modification, AccessRule rule, Boolean& modified)
-    bei System.Security.AccessControl.CommonObjectSecurity.SetAccessRule(AccessRule rule)
-    bei Curse.CurseClient.Common.CGameInstanceDatabase.resetAccessLevel(DirectoryInfo directoryInfo)
-
-
  Task Executing: Core
  Startup Complete

You must login to post a comment. Don't have an account? Register to get one!

• 

  • Reply
  • #11

  Adamar Fri, 09 Oct 2009 12:35:31

  Yes, it does jump down the list when it goes from 'Out of Date' to 'Recently Updated' - but for some reason that feels right. When it jumps from 'Up to Date' to 'Recently Update', it is very jarring.

  We're still experimenting with this.

• 

  • Reply
  • #10

  Nandini Wed, 07 Oct 2009 22:19:19

  I originally felt that "Up to Date" and "Recently Updated" should be sorted separately to give users an idea of what has changed, especially if they have automatic updating enabled.

  However, for users who really care about this (like me), there is an extra column I can sort by to achieve this. I can use the "Date Updated" column (which is hidden by default) to get this overview if I want.

  I'm curious, however; won't an addon already "jump down" the list if it is Out of Date and changes to Recently Updated? Why is there special concern for addons "jumping up" the list if it changes from Up to Date to Recently Updated?

• 

  • Reply
  • #9

  Adamar Wed, 07 Oct 2009 13:19:08

  We've been testing different sort options internally. The main point of contention is whether or not to sort "Up to Date" and "Recently Updated" differently. The problem with sorting these statuses differently is that it causes the addons to jump around in the listing when they are updated.

  Imagine this: You have scrolled down the list, and decide to re-install an "Up to Date" addon. After it has finished downloading and unzipping, it jumps towards the top of the list because it is now "Recently Updated". This creates a very jarring user experience, in my opinion.

• 

  • Reply
  • #8

  mikk Tue, 06 Oct 2009 23:13:24

  I would indeed like to see working copies sorted differently from up-to-date addons, so here's my +2 for this ticket.

  Nandini's sort makes sense to me, except 4. NOT Ignored AND Unconfirmed AND Working-Copy basically can't happen. Working copies are not unconfirmed :P

  Edit: I like "working copy" just as it is. It doesn't just mean "modified locally". It means there's an .svn / .git / .hg folder in it. If you see it, you know what it means.

  Edit 2: I'm a bit ambivalent about "recently updated" needing different sorting from "up to date". But I don't see the harm in it either. If nothing else, it makes it easier to see which addons you want to poke extra on to see what changed.

  Last edited on 06 Oct 2009 by mikk
• 

  • Reply
  • #7

  Nandini Thu, 17 Sep 2009 13:37:52

  The idea here is that user interaction is desired if an addon is unconfirmed and not ignored. Once an addon is ignored, the unconfirmed flag is presumed to no longer convey extra importance to the user.

  1. NOT Ignored AND Unconfirmed AND Out-of-Date
  2. NOT Ignored AND Unconfirmed AND Recently-Updated
  3. NOT Ignored AND Unconfirmed AND Up-to-Date
  4. NOT Ignored AND Unconfirmed AND Working-Copy
  5. NOT Ignored AND NOT Unconfirmed AND Out-of-Date
  6. NOT Ignored AND NOT Unconfirmed AND Recently-Updated
  7. NOT Ignored AND NOT Unconfirmed AND Up-to-Date
  8. NOT Ignored AND NOT Unconfirmed AND Working-Copy
  9. Ignored AND Out-of-Date
  10. Ignored AND Recently-Updated
  11. Ignored AND Up-to-Date
  12. Ignored AND Working-Copy

  Edit: Would lablelling working copies as "Modified Locally" or "Local Copy Modified" or "Local Changes Detected" take up too much space when the UPDATE button is present? I'm concerned that users may not understand exactly what "Modified" means. (For example, clueless WowMatrix users may think this means the repository version is "modified" and wonder why they can't download it.)

  Last edited on 17 Sep 2009 by Nandini
• 

  • Reply
  • #6

  Adamar Wed, 16 Sep 2009 21:38:44

  The possible statuses are:

  • Out of Date
  • Recently Updated
  • Up to Date
  • Working Copy
  • Ignored (not mutually exclusive with other statuses)
  • Unconfirmed (not mutually exclusive with other statuses)

  Now, think about the average user. How do you think they would like their addons to be sorted by default?

• 

  • Reply
  • #5

  Nandini Wed, 16 Sep 2009 20:39:28

  Since at some point it seems that addons will be able to be updated automatically, there is a strong reason to sort the "Recently Updated" status with a higher priority. This will allow users to easily see at a glance which addons have changed in a recent automatic update.

  (This presumes that automatic updating will be possible at some point. If not, that reason isn't as strong.)

  Edit: I see there is an extra, sortable "Date Updated" column that can be enabled. That could be a workaround for the concern I expressed above.

  A slightly less strong reason (but still completely valid) is that assigning the same sort priority to multiple statuses is likely to confuse users who sort by that column, as has already been evidenced here. How many tickets to do you want to want to respond to when users see some, but not all, statuses sorted seemingly randomly?

  Last edited on 16 Sep 2009 by Nandini
• 

  • Reply
  • #4

  hoss777 Mon, 14 Sep 2009 14:16:01

  I guess the first question is what are all the statuses?

  for example:

  1. Out of Date
  2. Unconfirmed
  3. Modified
  4. Up To Date
  5. Ignored
  6. <Other>

  At the moment if you do not have any statuses in the 1, 2, or 3 (in other words you are up to date for the most part), the list sorts by name causing the confusion.

• 

  • Reply
  • #3

  Adamar Mon, 14 Sep 2009 12:41:39

  As I have said before the status column is sorted as so:

  The v4 client sorts status in this order: 1. Out of Date 2. Unconfirmed 3. Other Statuses 4. Ignored

  Sorting "Recently Updated" differently than "Up to Date" can be done (easily), but it seemed like this wasn't desirable. If there's a consensus to change this behavior, I can do it.

• 

  • Reply
  • #2

  hoss777 Sun, 13 Sep 2009 04:20:35

  Sort by Status is sorting by Name; In other words Name and Status sorts do the same thing.

  As a side note, sorting by Latest Version is also useless since there is no standardization i the way versions are annotated.