Version Numbering Issues

[BAPACop]

Mod Organizer is doing a weird thing where the version number I type in isn't the number it displays. For example, 1.1.3a turns into 1.1.3alpha. 2.0b turns into 2.0beta. And when trying to enter versions in a date format, there's not enough room for characters in the box. You can't enter 12.12.2012d into the box because it won't accept the "d" at the end. You have to edit the meta.ini file directly instead.

[Nozzer66]

While I can completely sympathise with the OP...

 

Still no point coming to STEP to complain about something that is quite honestly out of STEP's control. Go to Tannin's bug tracker and Log it. If enough people do it he'll have to fix it.

[BAPACop]

This forum is listed as the "official support forum" for MO. I had an issue that required support. There was every point to coming here.

Edited November 30, 2014 by BAPACop

[hishutup]

Okay...

 

He didn't understand why the numbers were changing.

So he decided to ask. I see no fault in that.

 

There were some things that did not need to be said but it should be over, yes?

 

Man its like someone asked a politically sensitive question.

[Nozzer66]

Didn't say there was no point to coming here period.

 

For what it's worth I agree with you. I'd like it fixed too. 

 

However, it appears Tannin's not going to do much about it unless he gets forced to on the bug tracker. Thus I'll begrudgingly live with it for now, but have logged it.

[TechAngel85]

The last time I posted an issue here no one responded. You'll forgive me for posting in multiple locations to ensure someone actually gets around to talking to me about it. I don't link to Nexus mods. I put mods in myself and I type the version numbers in myself. I need to be able to compare the version numbers in MO to the version numbers available for download. Why do I have to "deal with it"? Why can't an obviously broken feature be fixed? I typed 1.1.3a. I didn't type 1.1.3alpha. Why would MO displaying anything other than what I typed in ever be proper behavior?

 

When I type in "2.04.4" it spits out "2.4.4". How are those numbers the same?

When I type in "new" it spits out "0.0.0ew". How are those the same?

And it doesn't store them the same and just display them different. No, it stores them as "2.4.4.0" and "n0.0.0ew". So no, MO doesn't still read it as the correct version. Not even close.

2.04.4 = 2.4.4 ...MO just drops the leading zeros. It's the same number. Basic math.

 

MO can not account for all possible ways that authors might decide to name their versions and "new" is way off from any standard. I'd ask the author to use a more standard versioning system and tell him/her that their system is not jiving well with MO (that probably wouldn't even jive with WB either) rather than blame it on MO. That's not an MO issue. It's an issue of an author using an odd ball version numbering system. The standard is easy to figure out by looking at just a couple mods on Nexus.

 

As for "alpha" and "beta", that is a bit annoying because the mod may not be in alpha or beta versions. But that, again, is a non-standard versioning system. Instead of adding letters, authors should only be using numbers in versions. That is industry standard for just about anything across the software world and that is why MO uses it. If author's deviate from the standard, it's not MO's fault for not being able to correctly translate it.

 

@All,

GSDFan is right and being nice. You guys need to reign it in. I would have already handed out some warnings. Lets keep on topic and keep it civil.

 

@BAPACop,

Keep in mind that posting multiple threads to increase its chance of being seen is not allowed.

 

@All,

Please review: https://wiki.step-project.com/Guide:STEP_Community_Citizenship

 

EDIT:

I leave you with this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_versioning#Sequence-based_identifiers

[BAPACop]

2.04.4 = 2.4.4 ...MO just drops the leading zeros. It's the same number. Basic math.

Um... no. You can't drop leading zeroes for anything after a decimal. Type 2.4 - 2.04 into a calculator. You won't get 0. They're not the same. 2.4 and 2.40 are the same, but not 2.4 and 2.04. And that's ignoring the fact that you don't ever have two decimals in math.

 

MO can not account for all possible ways that authors might decide to name their versions and "new" is way off from any standard.

It can easily account for all possible version systems by simply displaying them as entered instead of changing them. There is no need for MO to be trying to "translate" the numbers it is given. It introduces issues like this and accomplishes nothing but the confusion of the user, whereas leaving them unaltered would allow both MO and the user to compare version numbers with no problems.

 

Keep in mind that posting multiple threads to increase its chance of being seen is not allowed.

I have not posted multiple threads regarding this issue on this site. Edited November 30, 2014 by BAPACop

[TechAngel85]

Um... no. You can't drop leading zeroes for anything after a decimal. Type 2.4 - 2.04 into a calculator. You won't get 0. They're not the same. 2.4 and 2.40 are the same, but not 2.4 and 2.04. And that's ignoring the fact that you don't ever have two decimals in math.

You do have a point there. I didn't really think about that. This would be a legitimate bug that needs to be reported. Tannin usually doesn't fix things unless it's on the tracker so if it's not there already, you'll need to add it.

 

It can easily account for all possible version systems by simply displaying them as entered instead of changing them. There is no need for MO to be trying to "translate" the numbers it is given. It introduces issues like this and accomplishes nothing but the confusion of the user, whereas leaving them unaltered would allow both MO and the user to compare version numbers with no problems.

I realize this is possible by using ( /^[a-zA-Z]+$/ ) or something similar in the code; however, Tannin decided to use the standard versioning system for...well...versions. It makes sense. Your complaint makes sense as well, but basically you're just going to have to log it on the bug tracker and let Tannin do with it as he wants.

 

I have not posted multiple threads regarding this issue on this site.

Then disregard. I mistook what you said earlier as that is what you did.

[Nozzer66]

But you could also argue that 2.4.4 and 2.04.4 aren't valid decimal numbers, either. And there's the rub, unfortunately.

[BAPACop]

But you could also argue that 2.4.4 and 2.04.4 aren't valid decimal numbers, either.

Which I did. :) That just means that changing 2.40.4 to 2.4.4 would be equally wrong, since we're dealing with strings and not numbers.

 

Incidentally, MO actually displays 2.40.4 properly as 2.40.4.

[GrantSP]

It is implied by the comments of the user of the OP that this is a bug and it needs to be fixed immediately.

If that is the case than a report in the Bug Genie is sufficient. If clarification about the use of that feature was wanted then here is a good place to ask. Clarification was given which was dismissed in a manner that might be deemed unnecessary. It was to the manner it was presented that I was dismayed at, not the topic.

 

Contrary to popular belief Tannin is not 'sticking to his guns' on this matter but is rather focusing on more important issues.

In fact only a couple of months ago I raised a 'Feature Request' issue about version numbering when MO was only showing [major.minor.revision] style numbers. Tannin has since implemented the current format.

[BAPACop]

It was unknown at the time of posting whether there was a bug or an option in the program that I could not locate. When it became clear that there was no way to resolve the problem on the user's end, I posted a bug report.

Clarification was given which was dismissed in a manner that might be deemed unnecessary. It was to the manner it was presented that I was dismayed at, not the topic.

Considering my request for clarification was dismissed with, and I quote, "deal with it", perhaps you can understand why my tone became rather annoyed over time. Edited November 30, 2014 by BAPACop

[GrantSP]

How 'bout we all leave it as a request with Tannin?

 

If he decides to change the format, all's well and good. If he doesn't, we can just accept it as what it is - a fine piece of software that is far more useful than it is troublesome!

[Nozzer66]

The trouble with saying 'deal with it' is the old issue that often happens with the printed word...

 

You cant REALLY show an emotion behind it.

 

I can understand the OP thinking that being told to 'deal with it' was a way of telling him to 'Stop complaining and move on' as opposed to what it really meant which was more likely 'yeah we all know about it and Tannin's already said it's not something he's going to fix in a hurry, so live with it for now and hope it's fixed'.

 

There's only so much one can do by dropping a smiley in after the comment. 

[hishutup]

Kinda going back to the whole but I think its a good question

2.04.4 = 2.4.4 thing

 

Windows doesn't under stand that when there is a list of numbers in folder like:

0

1

2

3...

19

20

21...

 

it'll stick the "2" folder up with the 20's 

thats why 02 is necessary.

There are valid reasons for that happening and I understand that its a thing but I curious why is there any sort of logic with the numbers...

Little coding experience talking but why isn't there just a simple string?

 

I have a feeling, I enraged someone :/

 

---

 

 

Contrary to popular belief Tannin is not 'sticking to his guns' on this matter but is rather focusing on more important issues.

the reason I said something like that is because I wasn't around for the debate but I thought I had read topics on it...

Maybe I am wrong

[BAPACop]

Windows doesn't under stand that when there is a list of numbers in folder

Actually, Windows has sorted numbers properly (or at least had the option to do so) since Windows XP.