Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Better import-time duplication checks #3310

Closed
djl opened this issue Jun 13, 2019 · 1 comment
Closed

Better import-time duplication checks #3310

djl opened this issue Jun 13, 2019 · 1 comment

Comments

@djl
Copy link
Member

djl commented Jun 13, 2019

The current import-time duplication check is a little naive. Any albums the same name and album artist are treated as duplicates. This leads to "The Weezer Problem":

~% beet import .

Weezer [Green Album] (10 items)
Tagging:
    Weezer - Weezer
URL:
    https://musicbrainz.org/release/a9897d0b-b05a-41d9-baa5-68a754e917c3
(Similarity: 98.6%) (country) (CD, 2001, CA, Geffen Records, 0694930452, Green Album)
[A]pply, More candidates, Skip, Use as-is, as Tracks, Group albums,
Enter search, enter Id, aBort, Copy tracks, Print tracks, Open URL? a
This album is already in the library!
Old: 10 items, FLAC, 1020kbps, 37:43, 276.2 MiB
Old: 10 items, FLAC, 995kbps, 36:23, 260.3 MiB
Old: 10 items, FLAC, 975kbps, 41:18, 284.2 MiB
Old: 10 items, FLAC, 932kbps, 41:53, 274.2 MiB
Old: 10 items, FLAC, 1034kbps, 28:34, 211.6 MiB
New: 10 items, FLAC, 1034kbps, 28:34, 211.6 MiB
[S]kip new, Keep both, Remove old, Merge all?

Clearly, this is less than ideal.

This particular example could be solved by also checking for duplicate mb_releasegroupid fields but I'm not sure if that would also work with other tagging backends like Discogs.

If I'm wrong and that does work for all taggers, then great! Otherwise, it might make more sense to allow users to specify what fields should be used for dupe checking.

Perhaps someone can come up with a simpler or more robust solution?

@sampsyo
Copy link
Member

sampsyo commented Jun 13, 2019

Hi! We've discussed this in #1133, and it's a tricky issue—we have a proposal there for how to proceed. Maybe take a look and see if that plan makes sense to you?

@sampsyo sampsyo closed this as completed Jun 13, 2019
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants