Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: foo_discogs (Read 1372121 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Re: foo_discogs

Reply #2075 –
Quote from: zoomorph on
Quote from: alec.tron on
This was even more bizarre though (lives in 2 folders, 1 per CD as well), than suggesting to simply rewriting CD1 content to CD2 tracks:
https://www.discogs.com/Beastie-Boys-Anthology-The-Sounds-Of-Science/release/2916601
when queried, it returned with a proposed match of:
01 Beastie Boys (+20 HIDDEN)
02 The Biz Vs. The Nuge (+20 HIDDEN)
Currently foo_discogs treats "X.Y" track positions as hidden tracks, as recommended by the Discogs guidelines. Normally multiple CD tracks are entered as "X-Y" where X is the disc and Y the track number.
Thanks for the info!

So"foo_discogs treats "X.Y" track positions" refers to the way the Tracklist info is semantically numbered on each track/ID/release-webpage ?
Meaning this (X-YY) works with discogs_foo:
https://www.discogs.com/Various-V-Records-Presents-Retrospect-Vol-1/release/1519162
Whereas (X.YY) like here:
https://www.discogs.com/Various-1-In-The-Jungle/release/535454
does not.... ?!
(what's with X/YY ? - which I remember seeing as well...)

I'd suggest an option to allow users to enable 'X.YY' so hidden tracks can get written/mapped as tags as:
- there's many old releases on discogs still with X.YY tracklist descriptors...
- even if a hidden track, I personally do extract these further, as to not have multiple single tracks inside a ginormeous file, in which case an option to 'unhide' these 'hidden' tracks, via X-YY / X.YY syntax (which would result in X-YY.ZZ syntax...? if there's hidden tracks on multi CD releases...?) would reqally help.

Cheerio.
c.

Re: foo_discogs

Reply #2076 –
Agreed that there are a lot of albums with dots instead of dashes for multi-disc tracklistings.

I found one yesterday and took the advice of @zoomorph and edited the release.
For me, the edits went live immediately, so I was then able to use foo_discogs to successfully tag the album.

HOWEVER, I think this is because I have reached a certain threshhold of approved edits, isn't it? It wasn't that long ago that my edits required approval first.

So this works for me, but for a lot of more casual users I'd say that editing the release is not an immediate fix.
Some kind of solution for apparent hidden tracks (and acknowledged bad data in Discogs) would be helpful.

Re: foo_discogs

Reply #2077 –
Quote from: zoomorph on
Quote from: alec.tron on
And can (also) report this does not like multi media releases... when trying to tag a multi CD rip from this:
https://www.discogs.com/Quasimoto-The-Unseen/release/697747
it seems to repeat the CD1 info/tags on to CD2 tracks. At a guess, my organization/structure might play into this where CD1 & CD2 files live in their own folders respectively.
Hmmm... it works for me. You realize that the track titles on CD1 are the same as CD2 on this release, right?

Sorry, bad/confusing example...
Try this:
https://www.discogs.com/Alaska-Virtual-Virtuosos/release/357680
Same thing, first 10 are fine, then what should be displayed (based on the above release example - in the Match Tracks window) as:
2-01 Live 4 Deck Mix

gets displayed as:
1-01 Budhisava

But, no worries, since a picture tells a thousand words, here's a screenshot of what I see:


Churs.
c.

ps. potentially found the source... i.e. from how it seems this occurs when multiple of the to-be-tagged files have a pre existing tag of Track Number as "1"...  Do pre-existing tracks play into determining the mapping/order by chance ?

Re: foo_discogs

Reply #2078 –
Hm, just tried that Alaska release on a bunch of random tracks in my current playlist. Tracks 1-10 of one album and track 1 of another album.
Tags look just fine.


I was having this problem on an older version of the component, a couple of weeks ago. Do you definitely have the latest version?

Re: foo_discogs

Reply #2082 –
Updates:
- If all track positions have a "." in them, it's treated as a multi disc release instead of hidden tracks.
- New configuration option to parse hidden tracks as regular tracks. (temporary solution... and you may have to clear cache after changing it)

Re: foo_discogs

Reply #2083 –
WOOT! Thanks very much for adding the "hidden tracks as regular tracks" feature :D

Re: foo_discogs

Reply #2084 –
shucks, my quick-edit started before the hour but it crossed the hour boundary when saving. :)

Ok, as for the option to treat hidden tracks as regular tracks, I've not yet ran into serious issues.

There is however one thing you DO need to be aware of when using m-TAGS.
Your track numbering as shown by the tags file MUST be sequential without any suffixes as may be showing on the Discogs page for that release.

IOW, it should just show as "1, 2, 3, etc" and not like either "1a, 1b, 2a, etc" or "1.1, 1.2, 2.1, etc" as the component will do track matching based on the sequence number, not on the track numbers as listed on the page or in the tags file (if you altered those to reflect they were 'hidden').

Re: foo_discogs

Reply #2085 –
@zoomorph
I cant' access OAuth identity
Components loaded in: 0:00.097858
Configuration read in: 0:00.002606
Watching: C:\Documents and Settings\hulkkar\My documents\My music
User Interface initialized in: 0:00.048439
Audioscrobbler: Loaded
Conf3 already initialized.
Startup time : 0:00.235969
Opening track for playback: "G:\L\DJ Cam - Liquid Hip Hop\08 - Kalimba Groove.flac"
foo_discogs: Various Artists
foo_discogs: https://api.discogs.com/oauth/request_token?oauth_consumer_key=kQFLKuHXrEsVfZTDvOdz&oauth_nonce=14602297457953&oauth_signature=7GBNqOPMWf26dSuWBps3Vv3QpsI542651576&oauth_signature_method=HMAC-SHA1&oauth_timestamp=1460229745&oauth_version=1.0

Re: foo_discogs

Reply #2086 –
Hi, I got an Error here:

(FATAL) Error: Error loading release 1528944: Error parsing discs/tracks

[ESCAPE to close]


and



(FATAL) Error: Error loading release 3972022: JSON Parser ExceptionError parsing release credits.

[ESCAPE to close]



and


(FATAL) Error: Error loading release 7034945: JSON Parser ExceptionError parsing release credits.

[ESCAPE to close]

Re: foo_discogs

Reply #2087 –
Quote from: hulkkar on
I cant' access OAuth identity
Do you still use Windows XP?

From MP3tag forum (https://forums.mp3tag.de/index.php?showtopic=20977):
Quote
Discogs changed the API access to be HTTPS-only on March 14. [...] The Discogs servers use TLS 1.2 for SSL connections, which is unfortunately not available on Windows XP. It seems, that people who use [...] Windows XP cannot access the Discogs API as of March 14, 2016.

I suspect that it also explains your problem with foo_discogs.

Re: foo_discogs

Reply #2088 –
@lvqcl
thank you, I understant now!
I have also Windows 8 bit its 64 bit, and since I got a malware that I couldn't removed, I have been disgusted.

Re: foo_discogs

Reply #2089 –
Quote from: lvqcl on
From MP3tag forum (https://forums.mp3tag.de/index.php?showtopic=20977):
Quote
Discogs changed the API access to be HTTPS-only on March 14. [...] The Discogs servers use TLS 1.2 for SSL connections, which is unfortunately not available on Windows XP. It seems, that people who use [...] Windows XP cannot access the Discogs API as of March 14, 2016.
I suspect that it also explains your problem with foo_discogs.
Thanks for the info.

Updates:
- Better support for loading paginated stuff from Discogs API
- "Find releases not in collection" feature

Re: foo_discogs

Reply #2090 –
Quote from: zoomorph on
Updates:
- Better support for loading paginated stuff from Discogs API
- "Find releases not in collection" feature
Woohooo!
Thanks a ton, especially for the x.yy formatting for multi discs!

Also, a random question that has been bugging me, but can not find a satisfyting answer for...
With discogs, compilations always have the date set to that of the release of the compilation itself, eg here:
https://www.discogs.com/Various-Lee-Scratch-Perry-Born-In-The-Sky-Upsetter-At-The-Controls-1969-1975/release/1688045
where the compilation is from 2001, but each track has been released first in 1969-1975.... I would prefer these to be tagged with their original release year...this is not made possible on discogs from what I gather, only through comments/arbitrary-user-notes... I assume this has been discussed at length... has anyone looked into this feature-request and its' community history (as I assume I'm not alone with this and this has been discussed at length... searching the forums w 'date compilation' leads to 30k results... :/) ?
Cheers.
c.

Re: foo_discogs

Reply #2091 –
I think some people have suggested "master track" sort of Discogs pages for the same track on various releases, but I doubt that will ever happen. So original release date and creation date will probably always be stuck in custom notes.

Re: foo_discogs

Reply #2092 –
yea, that gave me a lead, there's tons of threads about this, all locked, none with a lead that this is intended to be addressed at some point :/
https://www.discogs.com/forum/thread/160357#2062039
https://www.discogs.com/forum/thread/272325#2961793
https://www.discogs.com/forum/thread/349734#3286038
https://www.discogs.com/forum/thread/366661#3399853

probably the most accurate wording, release (recording) VS manufacturing date:
https://www.discogs.com/forum/thread/343676#3226263

Guess I post a new thread to see where this is at... and done, in case anyone wants to chime in:
https://www.discogs.com/forum/thread/710721

Churs.
c.

Re: foo_discogs

Reply #2093 –
@jmbylsma

Sorry to bother you but since you are using ubuntu would ask you a question.

With the last release of foo_discogs when I click configuration the window does not appear. Instead the option write tags and edit tag mapping work perfectly.
Do you happen the same?

Re: foo_discogs

Reply #2094 –
So, it seems that after June 30th this year, everything using SSL or TLS 1.0 will no longer work (see: Migrating from SSL and Early TLS )

Which means that a whole lot more will likely stop working on XP...

Re: foo_discogs

Reply #2095 –
Hi, (sorry, if I miss something, but it seems, after this forum was updated, I don't receive any email-notification, although the notification settings are correct... darn technique...)

I'd like to suggest a "write" button next to the preview button. something like:

I really love the preview-function, but sometimes I just trust the component and just wanna write the tags fastly (i.e. when adding a lot of tags to my collection), but I don't want to go to the preferences and turn the preview off, because when I need it quickly, I need to turn it on again.
I think, things like "track order matching" or "preview" buttons need to go in the UI and should not be set up in the config as inflexible/rigid functions.
for my example, the user can quickly click "preview" when he/she/it wants to pre-view and write, if previewing is not needed. but he does not need to switch the preferences evey time. (which is a time-saver and a click-saver)

Re: foo_discogs

Reply #2096 –
When I search for tags I get the following error:
Code: [Select]
Authorization Failed (401) [Is OAuth working?] - (url: https://api.discogs.com/database/search)

So I figured I would re-authorize the app. When I go to Tagging > Discogs > Configuration and click "Authorize", I get the following error:
Code: [Select]
(skipped) Error: Authorization Failed (401) [Is OAuth working?] - (url: https://api.discogs.com/oauth/request_token)

This is in the Console:
Code: [Select]
foo_discogs: HTTP error status: HTTP/1.1 401 UNAUTHORIZED
foo_discogs: Exception handling: https://api.discogs.com/oauth/request_token?oauth_consumer_key=XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX&oauth_nonce=146039374329&oauth_signature=tdfgJ2DYycm%2FYxFknYQ%2BxpttosI%3D&oauth_signature_method=HMAC-SHA1&oauth_timestamp=1460393743&oauth_version=1.0

Any idea what's going on? I have updated to version 1.56
 

Re: foo_discogs

Reply #2097 –
Quote from: nicht on
The funny thing. Since the last update, when I click on Authorize button at OAuth Identity tab, I'm not redirected to the page with the token anymore. For some reason local IE cache is opened AppData/Local/Microsoft/Windows/INetCache/IE/78Z8FDLZ/authorize[1] in the browser (FF in my case).

it looks like I'm the only one who running into this issue. which is strange, since I can reproduce it on the other machine as well...

Re: foo_discogs

Reply #2099 –
Quote from: zoomorph on
Quote from: joseph1212 on
Any idea what's going on? I have updated to version 1.56
Are you using Windows XP? Seems that it will no longer work with Discogs API. (Mentioned above.)

I'm using Windows 10 and I have the same issue. I've literally built my foobar from new yesterday so all up to date. For starters there is no PIN number when I create the OAuth at discogs. At the discogs end I am getting this message:

Quote
Hello there!

This URL is an OAuth endpoint, but the request you made doesn't appear to
conform to the OAuth 1.0a protocol.

Please consult these resources:

    - Discogs OAuth docs: http://www.discogs.com/developers/#page:authentication
    - the OAuth specification: http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5849
    - the documentation for your OAuth library

for information on how to use this endpoint.

- Discogs